Direct Tax Weekly Flashback for the period 3 November To 9 November 2024.
Table of Contents
Punjab and Haryana High Court – Direct Tax Weekly Flashback
Family Settlement Not Required To Be Registered For Computing Capital Gains: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Rajiv Mehra Versus The Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that family settlement is not required to be registered for computing capital gains.
The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth has observed that the family settlement arrived at between the parties, which was duly available on record, which recorded the earlier settlement already arrived at between the parties was, therefore, a valid family settlement to be noticed for the purpose of computation and computation of capital gains in terms of Section 49(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Bombay High Court – Direct Tax Weekly Flashback
Bombay High Court Condones Delay In Filing ITR By A Doctor On Covid Duty
Case Title: Smita Dilip Ghule Versus CBDT
The Bombay High Court has condoned the delay in filing ITR (Income Tax Return) by a doctor on covid duty.
The bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla has observed that CBDT has completely lost sight of the fact that not only was the Petitioner a doctor who was on covid duty but that the Petitioner faced various other problems due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that was the reason why the Petitioner could not file her Return of Income within time.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court – Direct Tax Weekly Flashback
Excise Duty Exemption Is A Capital Receipt, Not Taxable Under Income Tax Act: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Gravita Metal Inc.
The Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court has held that excise duty exemption is a capital receipt and not taxable under Income Tax Act.
The bench of Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary has observed that the exemption from excise duty does not fall in the definition of income as envisaged under Section 2(24)(xviii) of the Income Tax Act and the amount is not an income but a capital receipt not taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Delhi High Court – Direct Tax Weekly Flashback
Delhi High Court Quashed Reassessment Notice Beyond 10 Years Block Period
Case Title: Kad Housing Private Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 6 Delhi
The Delhi High Court has quashed the reassessment notice citing it to be beyond 10 years block period.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has relied on the judgement of Dinesh Jindal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, Delhi & Others in which it was held that a reassessment action would thus have to not only satisfy the time frames constructed in terms of Section 149, but in a relevant case and which is concerned with a search, also those which would be applicable by virtue of the provisions of Section 153A and 153C of the Income Tax Act.
AO To Spell Out Reasons As To What Was To Be Disclosed Before Initiating Reassessment Under Section 147 : Delhi High Court
Case Title: Discovery Communications India Versus Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax
The Delhi High Court has held that the (Assessing Officer) AO to spell out reasons as to what was to be disclosed before initiating income tax reassessment under section 147.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja has observed that the existence of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly should not only be integral to the reasons but it must also be spelt out in the reasons as to what was to be disclosed but had not been disclosed. The absence of such averments in the reasons renders the whole exercise nugatory. Such lapse on the part of the AO cannot be regarded as a mere procedural irregularity but is a defect which goes to the root of the matter.
Gauhati High Court – Direct Tax Weekly Flashback
Disciplinary Action Against CIT(A) Can’t Be Initiated For Deleting Rs.120.55 Crore Income Tax Addition In Hasty Manner: Gauhati High Court
Case Title: The Union Of India Versus Vinay Kumar
The Gauhati High Court has held that disciplinary action against CIT (A) could not be initiated for deleting Rs. 120.55 crore income tax addition in a hasty manner.
The bench of Chief Justice Mr. Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair has observed that though the Department was aware about the alleged negligent act of the CIT(A)/respondent since the beginning but has not taken any action against the respondent till passing of a fresh order by the ITAT, pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court at Calcutta.
Notifications – Direct Tax Weekly Flashback
New Monetary Limits For Waiver Of Interest By Income Tax Authority: CBDT
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax or Commissioner of income tax is empowered to deal with the monetary Limits upto Rs. 50 Lakhs for reduction or waiver of interest.
The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central (CCIT)/ Directorate General of Income Tax Investigation (DGIT) is empowered to deal with the monetary Limits above Rs. 50 lakhs to Rs. 1.5 crore for reduction or waiver of interest.
The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Central (Pr. CCIT) is empowered to deal with the monetary Limits above Rs. 1.5 crore for reduction or waiver of interest.
Circular No. 15/2024
