'); document.write('

Divya Capital One (P ) Ltd v. ACIT (Delhi)(HC) www.itatonline .org
'); document.write('The assessee is in the business of Trading in derivatives . The order u/s 148A was passed assessment order was passed understanding the nature of the business and non application of mind by proposing to make addition of Rs Rs 10, 07 05, 88, 04 , 543 ) Rupees One lakh seven hundred and five crores eighty lakhs four thousand five hundred and forty -three only. The assessee challenged the said order by filing writ petition . Allowing the petition the Court observed that whether it is “information to suggest” under amended law or “reason to believe” under erstwhile law the benchmark of “escapement of income chargeable to tax” still remains the primary condition to be satisfied before invoking powers under Section 147 of the Act. Merely because the Revenue-respondent classifies a fact already on record as “information” may vest it with the power to issue a notice of re-assessment under Section 148A(b) of the Act but would certainly not vest it with the power to issue a re-assessment notice under Section 148 of the Act post an order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. As the Order was arbitrary, cryptic and without application of mind, and the Assessee was not given a fair chance of representation, the impugned order issued under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh determination. ( W.P.(C) 7406/2022 dated May 12, 2022) '); document.write('
Blackstone FP Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd. v. DCIT IT APPEAL NOS. (Mum)(Trib) www.itatonlne .org
'); document.write('Assessing Officer held that the income of Rs 904.98 crores earned by the assessee is in the nature of long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee company is claiming to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Blackstone FP Capital (Mauritius) VA Ltd Cayman Islands, had no independent existence. Its entire activity was controlled and directed as per the directions of its affiliates. The entire scheme of purchase and sale of shares was designed for the benefit of the entities in Cayman Islands of Blackstone Group, in the veil of carrying out transactions through them. Therefore, considering totality of fact the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of DTAA with Mauritius. Tribunal held that the the concept of beneficial ownership being a sine qua non to entitlement to treaty benefits cannot, in the absence of specific provision to that effect, cannot be inferred or assumed. The matter was remanded back to the Ld. Assessing Officer to adjudicate upon foundational issues, i.e., whether the concept of ‘beneficial ownership’ is inbuilt in the scheme of Article 13 of Indo-Mauritius DTAA and, if so, what are the connotations of ‘beneficial ownership’ in this context. ( ITA Nos . 981/ 1725 /Mum/of 2021 dt 17 -5 . 2022 ( AY. 2016 -17 ) '); document.write('
Stemade Biotech P.Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org.
'); document.write('The assessee is a company engaged in the business of ‘extraction , collection , preservation and banking of stem cells ‘ mainly from dental pulp . The assessee company has paid referral service fee to the medical practioners for availing of the steam cell banking services . The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenses , which was affirmed by the CIT(A ).On appeal the Appellate Tribunal referred the rule 6. 8. 1(d)) of the Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics ) Regulations 2002 and held that the acceptance of such a referral fee by a medical Practioner is forbidden by the legally enforceable code of conduct which renders it an expenses for a purpose that is ‘prohibited by law , depriving the assessee company to claim a tax deduction in respect of the said expenditure . Order of CIT(A) is affirmed . Referred Apex Laboratories P. Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( 2022) 442 ITR 1 (SC ) ( ITA No. 7823/Mum) 19 dt .20 -5 -2022 ( AY. 2015 -16 ) The assessee is a company engaged in the business of ‘extraction , collection , preservation and banking of stem cells ‘ mainly from dental pulp . The assessee company has paid referral service fee to the medical practioners for availing of the steam cell banking services . The Assessing Officer disallowed the said expenses , which was affirmed by the CIT(A ).On appeal the Appellate Tribunal referred the rule 6. 8. 1(d)) of the Indian Medical Council ( Professional Conduct Etiquette and Ethics ) Regulations 2002 and held that the acceptance of such a referral fee by a medical Practioner is forbidden by the legally enforceable code of conduct which renders it an expenses for a purpose that is ‘prohibited by law , depriving the assessee company to claim a tax deduction in respect of the said expenditure . Order of CIT(A) is affirmed . Referred Apex Laboratories P. Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( 2022) 442 ITR 1 (SC ) ( ITA No. 7823/Mum) 19 dt .20 -5 -2022 ( AY. 2015 -16 ) '); document.write('
JR Industries v. PCIT (2022) 192 ITD 414 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
'); document.write('Assessing Officer without carrying out any sort of investigation or verification or recording his satisfaction, treated sales as bogus and charged 25 per cent as income derived out of accommodation entries. Order of Assessing Officer being erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, Commissioner was justified in exercising his revisionary jurisdiction and pointing out discrepancies in order passed by Assessing Officer. Commissioner can assume jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of issues which have not been considered and decided by Commissioner (Appeals) (AY. 2011-12)'); document.write('
Minimax Commerce (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 303 (Raipur)(Trib.)
'); document.write('Assessment order was passed by Assessing Officer, Raipur whereby return of income filed by assessee showing loss was assessed without any adjustment. Revision order was passed on ground that Assessing Officer had failed to carry out necessary verification and he was directed to conduct necessary inquiries. On appeal, assessee challenged said order on ground that assessment order was illegal as Assessing Officer who passed assessment order at Raipur did not issue notice under section 143(2) prior to assessment. It was found that assessment was made by Assessing Officer, Raipur on foundation of section 143(2) notice issued by Assessing Officer, Kolkata and said proceedings under section 143(2) were dropped by Assessing Officer, Kolkata and thereafter an order under section 127(2)(a) was passed whereby jurisdiction over assessee was transferred from AO, Kolkata to Assessing Officer, Raipur. Tribunal held that since assessment order was passed on basis of an invalid and non est notice, it could not be countenanced in law, and consequently, revisional action under section 263 was not permissible. (AY. 2017-18)'); document.write('