The Income Tax Department has issued detailed FAQs explaining the meaning, computation, and tax treatment of agricultural income under Section 2(1A) and the Income-tax Rules. The guidance also clarifies exemptions, partial integration, and capital gains on agricultural land.
ITAT Delhi held that receipts from hiring conference and auditorium facilities constituted business income under Section 11(4A) as the charitable society actively provided commercial facilities beyond passive letting. The assessee’s appeals were dismissed.
The Supreme Court directed High Courts to first determine whether the reassessment cases relate to AY 2015-16. If they do, the notices must be declared time-barred in terms of Rajeev Bansal without further adjudication.
The ITAT observed that recording satisfaction for one penalty provision cannot substitute the statutory requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 271D. The penalties were therefore set aside following the Supreme Court’s decision in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that an arithmetical mistake committed by the assessee’s consultant did not amount to misreporting of income under Section 270A(9). The penalty was cancelled as there was no misrepresentation or suppression of facts.
The Gujarat High Court held that reopening under Sections 147 and 148 could not be sustained where allowing higher depreciation would not result in any escapement of income chargeable to tax. It ruled that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion and quashed the proceedings.
The Gujarat High Court held that DGCEI falls within the scope of law enforcement agencies under Clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular, making the exception to departmental appeal monetary limits applicable. The Tribunal’s contrary interpretation was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
CESTAT Chennai held that the extended limitation period cannot be invoked where the Department itself disagreed with the CERA audit objection that triggered the show cause notice. The Tribunal ruled that the dispute was interpretational and the demand was therefore time-barred.
The Bombay High Court held that royalty refunded by a foreign company to its Indian subsidiary under an Advance Pricing Agreement could not be taxed as its income. The Court also ruled that the APA governed the determination of the arm’s length price for the covered assessment years.
The Bombay High Court held that interest under Section 234D applies to excess income tax refunds issued before June 1, 2003, by following its earlier binding decision. The ITAT order was set aside and the Revenue’s appeal was allowed.
