'); document.write('

PCIT v. Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai ( 2022) 142 Taxmann.com 247 ( Guj)(HC)
'); document.write('The assessee sold shares of Devika Proteins Limited claimed long-term capital gain as exempt .The Assessing Officer treated said gains as bogus and in nature of penny stock. He made additions to the said amount under section 68. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that since shares were in the nature of old investment, they could not be treated as penny stock by any stretch of the imagination. Tribunal upheld to view taken by the CIT(A). On appeal High Court held that the genuineness of investment in the shares by the assessee was substantiated by him by producing copy of the transaction statement for the period from 1-6-2001 to 1-10-2010. The investment was made in the year 2000-01. The shares were retained for more than ten years and were sold after such a long time. These circumstances suggested that the investment was not bogus or investment made in penny stock. The shares were purchased in order to invest and not to earn exempted income by frequent trading in a short span. Order of Tribunal is affirmed . ( AY. 2011-12 ) '); document.write('
State of Maharashtra and Ors v. Greatship ( India ) Ltd (SC) www.itatonline .org
'); document.write('The personal hearing was fixed on a particular day . The AO was not available and therefore no hearing took place . Multiple telephone calls were made to the AO for personal hearing but no such hearing was materialized . The AO passed the order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT and CST Act. The respondent filed writ petition challenging the order on the ground that the order was beyond the period of limitation . High Court entertained the writ petition and quashed the assessment order and the demand notice . On appeal the Supreme Court held that when the statutory remedy is available High Court has seriously erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the assessment order by passing the statutory remedies . Court also observed that when there is an alternative remedy is available , judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions . Accordingly the order of High Court was set aside and directed to prefer appeal remedy with in four weeks . Referred United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors ( 2010) 8SCC 110 , (CA No. 4956 of 2022 dt 20 -9 -2022 ) '); document.write('
CIT v. Mukund Bhavan Trust ( Bom)( HC) (UR)
'); document.write('The AO held that rent charged from one of the Trustee is less than the market rent and rent charged from other tenants in the same premises . The AO denied the exemption u/s 11 on entire income of the Trust on the ground that the assessee has violated the provision of the section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act . CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO. On appeal the Tribunal held that exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied for violation of section 13 of the Act and the disallowance should be restricted to the extent of violation of provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and 13(b) of the Act and the matter was remanded for verification . On appeal by the Revenue the question raised before the High Court is “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Honourable ITAT is right in holding that the violation of section 13(1)( c) (ii) does not lead to denial of exemption u/s 11 as against the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of DIT v. Bharat Diamond Bourse dt . 1 December 2002 ( 2003) 179 CTR 225 ?” Following the judgement in CIT( E) v. Audyogik Shikhan Mndal ( 2019) 101 taxmann. com 247/ 261 Taxman 12 ( Bom)( HC ), the question of law raised by the Revenue was dismissed . Order of Tribunal is affirmed . ( ITA .No 683 of 2018 dt 5 -8 -2022) ( AY. 2010 -11) ( ITA No. 223/Pun/ 2014 dt 28 -6 -2017 )'); document.write('
Vageesh Umesh Jaiswal v. State of Gujarat ( 2022) (64) G.S.T.L. 177 ( Guj.)(HC)
'); document.write('Dealing with cancellation of Registration the Court observed that no reasons was assigned in show cause notice , mere incorporation of Rule 21 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules , 2017 is insufficient . Authority to at least furnish some information about bogus billing alleged . Contention that input tax credit also blocked in exercise of powers under Rule 86A ibid also not justified as order already outlived its statutory life period of one year . Blocking of inpute tax credit also to end . Cancellation of registration set aside on ground of vague show cause notice benefit of any material particulars with liberty authority to issue fresh show cause notice . With caution that fresh show cause notice should contain all necessary details and information about alleged bogus billing to enable assessee to file effective reply to it . Court also observed that cancellation of registration by Commercial Tax Officer on basis of vague show cause notice in one line order . Officer making of justice and provisions of law , not to remain in office on such understanding of law . '); document.write('
ACIT v. Parsons Brinckershoff India (P)Ltd ( 2022) 140 taxmann.com 645 ( Delhi)( Trib)
'); document.write('Assessee was engaged in business of providing consultancy services and supply of manpower services to power and infrastructure sector in India and abroad . Assessee created provisions for certain expenses and claimed that tax was deducted when liability to pay such expenses was crystallized on receipt of invoices . Assessing Officer denied said claim on ground that under mercantile system of accounting, accrual of liability for any expenditure was not dependent on receipt of invoices . He held that assessee-company failed to deduct TDS and levied penalty under section 271C of the Act . CIT(A) deleted penalty on ground that taxes were duly deducted and deposited against impugned expenses when liability to pay such expenses was crystallized . Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Tribunal held that the assessee has made only provision and there was no crystallisation of income in the hands of the recipient at the end of the financial year . Referred ITO v. DLF Southern Homes (P) Ltd 2017 SCC Online ITAT 148 / DCIT v. Telco Construction Equipment Co Ltd ( ITA. 478 /Bang /2012 dt.7-3 -2014 . (AY. 2013 -14 ) '); document.write('