RNM Tax Alert – Direct Tax Part for May 2024
- NOTIFICATION S.O. 2103(E) [NO. 44/2024/F.NO.370142/10/2024-TPL], DATED 24-5-2024
The CBDT via this notification notified ‘363’ Cost Inflation Index (CII) for Financial Year 2024-25.
2. Notification G.S.R. 233 (E), dated 27th March , 2024.
The CBDT amends Form 27Q; added ‘Note 7A’ for furnishing information about lower or no TDS under section 197A. Taxpayers are now required to write “P” if lower deduction or no deduction is in view of the notification issued u/s 197A(1F).
Important Judicial Precedents
1. SC Reassessment made by jurisdictional AO on basis of notice issued by non-jurisdictional AO is bad in law: ITAT
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 704 (Delhi – Trib.) Saroj Sangwan vs. Income-tax Officer*
Where reassessment proceedings were initiated by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and later on, case was transferred to jurisdictional Assessing Officer for completion of reassessment, since non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction over assessee, reassessment made by jurisdictional Assessing Officer on basis of notice issued under section 148 by non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer was to be quashed.
2. AO can’t deny the benefit of TDS to employee if the employer failed to deposit tax with Govt.: HC
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 767 (HC – Orissa) Malay Kar vs. Union of India*
Where employer, which had deducted tax at source from salary of its employee- assessee but had not deposited amount to Central Government’s account, in such case Assessing Officer cannot deny benefit of tax deducted at source by employer to assessee and shall give credit of TDS amount to him.
3. No reassessment if tax liability under MAT is higher than income assessed under normal provisions: ITAT
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 730 (Delhi – Trib.) Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. vs. ACIT
Reopening of an assessment is unwarranted when tax liability under MAT provisions remains higher and unchanged despite adjustments made under normal tax provisions.
4. Sec. 54F relief not available if registered purchase deed of new house wasn’t executed within stipulated time
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 547 (Rajkot – Trib.) Hiteshbhai Mansukhbhai Bagdai v. ACIT
Where assessee claimed exemption under section 54F in respect of investment made for purchase of new residential property against sale of long term capital asset being land, however, assessee failed to get documents registered for purchase of residential house being flat, hence, condition laid down in section 54F remained unfulfilled and thus, exemption under section 54F was not allowable.
5. HC quashes reassessment as notice was issued in name of non-existing firm subsequent to conversion into company
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 71 (Madras – HC) NRP Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/Income-tax Officer, NFAC Delhi
Where a partnership firm was converted into a company and it was dissolved on 14-7-2010 and Assessing Officer issued in name of firm a notice under section 148 for assessment year 2015-16 and thereafter passed assessment order in its name, since assessment order itself had been passed in name of non-existing firm, impugned assessment order and notice issued under section 148 deserved to be set aside.
6. ITAT deleted sec. 69 additions as AO made additions solely on basis of retracted statement of witnesses
[2024] 162 taxmann.com 157 (Delhi – Trib.) Maple Destinations and Dreambuild (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT
Where AO made addition u/s 69 on account of unexplained investment made by assessee in purchase of a farm house ignoring documentary evidence in form of registered sale deed which is a best evidence for finding actual sale value and in absence of any other material to show that transactions involved in cash outside sale consideration mentioned in sale deed and relying on statements of witnesses which had been retracted thereafter and without granting opportunity to assessee to cross-examine witnesses, addition was liable to be deleted.