Penalty – Since once error was pointed out and assessee made a course correction before assessment order was passed, in said circumstances, AO could not impose penalty upon assessee u/s 271(1)(c).
PCIT v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. – [2023] 151 taxmann.com 512 (Delhi).
Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 – SLP dismissed against impugned order of HC that where assessee availed benefit of Declaration of Income Scheme, 2016 and submitted a declaration with respect to undisclosed income of relevant assessment year, AO would have no jurisdiction to assess income for which declaration was made and thus, reopening notice was to be set aside.
ACIT v. Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali – [2023] 151 taxmann.com 436 (SC).
Sec. 72 – Amalgamation – SLP dismissed against impugned order of HC that once a scheme is sanctioned, same would relate back to appointed date of amalgamation and that for all purposes including for recognising benefits of unabsorbed depreciation and losses of a merging company with those of principal company, would be available from such date.
PCIT v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – [2023] 151 taxmann.com 448 (SC).
Sec. 124 – Where HC set aside notice issued u/s 143(2) in case of assessee on ground that jurisdictional officer had not adjudicated upon returns as jurisdiction had been changed after returns were filed, since records revealed that assessee had participated in proceedings pursuant to a notice issued u/s 142(1) and had not questioned the jurisdiction of AO, in such case order of HC could not be sustained.
DCIT(E) v. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology – [2023] 151 taxmann.com 434 (SC).
Sec. 36(1)(vii) – SLP dismissed against order of the HC that where assessee had entered into agreements with a company for takeover and assignment of certain book debts and wrote off certain debts from certain parties as bad debts, since Memorandum and Article of Association permitted assessee to carry on business of money lending and transactions in question had been held to be in realm of business activity, assesses claim of bad debts was to be allowed.
CIT v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. – [2023] 151 taxmann.com 428(SC).
Tax Residency Certificate is sufficient to determine proof of residency and assessee, being a tax resident of Singapore, is entitled to benefits under India-Singapore DTAA.
CIT (IT) v. Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce (P.) Ltd. – [2023] 152 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay).