{"id":5881,"date":"2019-03-16T15:02:02","date_gmt":"2019-03-16T09:32:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/?p=5881"},"modified":"2019-03-16T15:02:29","modified_gmt":"2019-03-16T09:32:29","slug":"analysis-of-recent-important-decisions-with-video-pdf-file","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/analysis-of-recent-important-decisions-with-video-pdf-file\/","title":{"rendered":"Analysis Of Recent Important Decisions (With Video &#038; Pdf File)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-content\/uploads\/rajan-vora.jpg\" alt=\"rajan-vora\" width=\"92\" height=\"100\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-5886\" \/><strong>CA Rajan Vora delivered a presentation recently at the BCAS on recent important decisions in which he has analyzed several judgements and explained their nuances. A video of the presentation is available. The presentation is also available for download in pdf format<\/strong><\/p>\n<div align=\"right\"><span class=\"journal2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/analysis-of-recent-important-decisions-with-video-pdf-file\/#link\">Link to download this article in pdf format is at the bottom<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Agenda <\/strong><\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"550\">\n<p>\u2751 <strong>Aarham    Softronics (SC) &ndash; <\/strong>Section 80-IC<br \/>\n      \u2751 <strong>NRA Iron &amp; Steel (P.) Ltd.    (SC) &ndash; <\/strong>Section 68 &ndash; (Primary Onus)<br \/>\n     \u2751 <strong>Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd. <\/strong>&ndash; Section 92C r.w.s. 144C<br \/>\n     \u2751 <strong>Vodafone Mobile Services Limited <\/strong>&ndash; Writ filed for refund claim rejected<br \/>\n      \u2751 <strong>Celerity Power LLP (Mum. ITAT SB) <\/strong>&ndash; Section 45 &ndash; section 48 and section 72<br \/>\n      \u2751 <strong>Recent case laws on Capital Gains<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n        <\/strong> \u2751 <strong>Recent case laws on section 56<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n          <\/strong>\u2751 <strong>Recent case laws on section 68 and    section 69A<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n            <\/strong>\u2751 <strong>Judicial Decisions on Medical    Council Regulations &ndash; Disallowance u\/s 37<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n              <\/strong>\u2751 <strong>Transfer Pricing:<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n                <\/strong>\u2751 <strong>AMP<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n                  <\/strong>\u2751 <strong>Corporate Guarantee<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n                  <\/strong>\u2751 <strong>Interest on loan<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/Xh0GTeLSZ2I\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/p>\n<p><strong>Aarham Softronics <\/strong><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><strong>[2019] 102 taxmann.com 343 (SC) (Dated <\/strong><strong>20 February 2019<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Background<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The issue for  consideration before the Supreme Court, in a group of cases, was as under:<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; <em>&ldquo;Whether an assessee who sets up a new  industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 80-IC of the Act and  starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under subsection (3) of Section  80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming the exemption at  the same rate of 100% beyond the period of five years on the ground that the  assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in its manufacturing unit?&rdquo;<br \/>\n  <\/em><br \/>\n  &#9658; The Hon&rsquo;ble  Supreme Court in <em>Classic Binding Industries (2018) 407 ITR 429 (SC<\/em>) (2 member bench) had answered the above  question in negative and observed that:<\/p>\n<p>  <em>&ldquo;If that is allowed it will amount to doing violence to the  provisions of sub-section (3) read with sub-section (6) of Section 80-IC&rdquo;. SC  added that &ldquo;A pragmatic and reasonable interpretation of Sec. 80- IC would be  to hold that once the initial AY commences and an assessee, by virtue of  fulfilling the conditions laid down in sub-section (2) of Sec. 80-IC, starts  enjoying deduction, there cannot be another &ldquo;Initial AY&rdquo; for the purposes of  Sec. 80-IC within the aforesaid period of 10 years, on the basis that it had  carried substantial expansion in its unit.&rdquo;<br \/>\n  <\/em> <br \/>\n  &#9658; The SC in <em>Classic Binding <\/em>case held that after availing deduction for a period of 5 years @ 100% of such profits and gains from the &#8216;units&#8217;, the assessees  would be entitled to deduction for remaining 5 AYs @ 25% (or 30%  where the assessee is a company), as<br \/>\n  the case may be, and not @ 100%.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Background of the Miscellaneous Application  against <\/strong><strong><em>Classic Binding<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><br \/>\n  <\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The decision in  Classic Binding was decided without serving notices on number of respondents and their case remained  unrepresented.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Thus, these respondents  had filed miscellaneous applications for recall of<br \/>\n  order. The applications were allowed and the earlier  order in Classic Binding was recalled.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Further, all the  appeals filed was heard afresh.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>SC Ruling<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Section 80-IC(8)  &ndash; Clause (v) defines <em>&quot;Initial assessment year&quot;  means the<\/em><em> <\/em><em>assessment year relevant to the previous  year in which the undertaking or the  enterprise begins to manufacture or produce  articles or things, or commences  operation or completes substantial  expansion<br \/>\n  <\/em> <br \/>\n  &#9658; The decision in <em>Classic Binding <\/em>was given upon an  incorrect interpretation of<br \/>\n  section 80-IC [by considering the definition of  &lsquo;initial assessment year&rsquo; u\/s 80-<br \/>\n  IB(14) which does not contain provision for substantial  expansion]<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The SC noted that <em>&ldquo;The benefit of Section 80-IC is, thus, admissible not  only<\/em><em> <\/em><em>when an undertaking or enterprise sets up  new unit and starts manufacturing  or producing article or things but is also  accrued to those existing units, if they  carry out &ldquo;substantial expansion&rdquo; of their  units by investing required capital, in  the assessment year relevant to the  previous year.&rdquo;<br \/>\n  <\/em><br \/>\n  &#9658; Regarding  observation of division bench in Classic Binding case that if<br \/>\n  deduction @ 100% is allowed for the entire period of 10  years, it would be<br \/>\n  doing violence to the language of sub-section (6) of  Section 80-IC, the<br \/>\n  Hon&rsquo;ble SC remarked that <em>&ldquo;&#8230; this observation came without noticing the<\/em><em> <\/em><em>definition of &#8216;initial assessment year&lsquo;  contained in the same very provision.&rdquo;<br \/>\n  <\/em><br \/>\n  &#9658; The SC accepted  that in deciding the <em>Classic Binding <\/em>case, there was a<br \/>\n  mistake in interpretation and the definition u\/s  80-IC(8)(v) was ignored<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The SC accepted  the assessee&#8217;s contention there can be another &#8216;initial<br \/>\n  assessment year&#8217; on the fulfilment of the condition  mentioned in the said<br \/>\n  definition, namely, completion of substantial expansion  of the existing unit.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Thus, there can  be two &lsquo;initial assessment years&rsquo; u\/s 80-IC(8) subject to the<br \/>\n  maximum cap of 10 years provided u\/s 80-IC(6)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Example:<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Accordingly, the  SC decided the issue in favour of the assessee\n<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"5\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"401\">\n<p>Substantial Expansion &ndash; in 6th year<br \/>\n      itself &ndash; Rate of Deduction u\/s 80-IC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"402\">\n<p>Substantial Expansion &ndash; in 8th year<br \/>\n      itself &ndash; Rate of Deduction u\/s 80-IC<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"401\">\n<p>First 5 years &ndash; 100% <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"402\">\n<p>First 5 years &ndash; 100%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"401\">\n<p>6th year to 10th year &ndash; 100% <\/p>\n<\/td>\n<td width=\"402\">\n<p>6th year and 7th year &ndash; 25%\/ 30%<br \/>\n      8th, 9th and 10th year &ndash; 100%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>    <strong>NRA Iron &amp; Steel (P.) Ltd  <\/strong><strong>[2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) (Dated <\/strong><strong>5 March 2019<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong>Facts<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The assessee company had received share  premium. The AO doubted the share<br \/>\n  capital\/premium were genuine transactions or not and  called upon the details<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The Assessee inter alia submitted that the  entire Share Capital had been<br \/>\n  received by the Assessee through normal banking  channels by account payee<br \/>\n  cheques\/demand drafts, and produced documents such as  income tax return<br \/>\n  acknowledgments to establish the identity and  genuineness of the transaction. It<br \/>\n  was submitted that the onus on the Assessee Company  stood fully discharged<br \/>\n  and section 68 could not be invoked.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The AO had issued summons to  representatives of investor companies. None of<br \/>\n  the respondents appeared in person and submission were  made through dak.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The AO independently got field enquiries  conducted with respect to the identity<br \/>\n  and credit-worthiness of the investor companies, and to  examine the<br \/>\n  genuineness of the transaction.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The detailed inquiry of the AO reveals  that:<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; None of the investor companies could  justify such high premium.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Some of the investor companies were  non-existent.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Almost none of the Investor companies did  not establish the source of funds<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; None of the investor companies appeared  before the AO and merely sent<br \/>\n  written response through dak<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Thus, the share premium was added u\/s 68.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I,  New Delhi vide Order dated  11.04.2014 deleted the addition made by the A.O. on the  ground that the Respondent had filed confirmations from the investor  companies, their Income Tax Return, acknowledgments with PAN numbers, copies of  their bank account to  show that the entire amount had been paid through  normal banking channels, and<br \/>\n  hence discharged the initial onus under Section 68 of  the Act, for establishing the  credibility and identity of the shareholders.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; On appeal to the ITAT, the Tribunal  dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the  ground that the assessee had discharged the primary  onus to establish the identity and credit &ndash;worthiness of the investors,  especially when the investor<br \/>\n  companies had filed their returns and were being  assessed<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; On appeal to the High Court, the High Court  dismissed the appeal and affirmed  the decision of the Tribunal on the ground that the  issues raised before it were urged on facts and the lower authorities had taken  sufficient care to consider the<br \/>\n  relevant circumstances. Thus, no substantial question  of law arose.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Issue<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  The issue for consideration before the  Supreme Court is whether the assessee has  discharged the primary onus to establish genuineness of  the transaction u\/s 68<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Ruling of th Supreme Court<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The ruling of the  Supreme Court discusses a number of judgments on the  provisions<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The principles  for invoking section 68 for share capital\/ premium, viz.:<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Discharge of  Primary Onus: The assessee is under a legal obligation to prove genuineness of the transaction, identity of the  creditors, and credit-worthiness of the investors who should have the financial capacity to  make the investment in<br \/>\n  question, to the satisfaction of AO<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; If enquiries and  investigation reveal the identity of the creditors to be dubious \/  doubtful, or lack credit &ndash; worthiness, then genuineness  would not be established<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The detailed  inquiry of the AO reveals that:<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; No material on  record to prove that money was received from independent legal  entities. Survey revealed some of the investor  companies were non-existent.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The investor  companies were filing returns with negligible taxable income and did not have financial capacity to invest funds for  purchase of shares at a premium<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; No explanation  was available for applying for shares at such high premium<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Investor  companies did not establish the source of funds<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The lower  authorities have ignored the detailed findings of the AO and had  erroneously held that merely because the assessee had  filed all the primary evidence, the onus on assessee stood discharged<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; On the facts of  the present case, the assessee failed to discharge the onus  casted u\/s 68 and thus the AO was justified in making  the additions<\/p>\n<p><strong>Lionbridge Technologies (P.) Ltd.<\/strong><strong>[2018] 100 taxmann.com 413 (<\/strong><strong>Bombay<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong>Issue of Corrigendum to modify final  assessment order into draft assessment order beyond time limit is not tenable<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The time limit  for passing the draft assessment order was 31st March,   2014. The AO  passed a final assessment order dated 12th March, 2014. The AO vide a  corrigendum dated 16th April, 2014 modified the final assessment order into a draft assessment   order<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Issue<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  Whether the draft assessment order was  passed beyond time limit and thus untenable?<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Ruling of the Tribunal<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The Tribunal  noted that in terms of section 153(2A) the time limit for passing draft assessment order was 31st March, 2014.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The Tribunal held  that it was not permissible to pass the draft assessment order  beyond time limit . As corrigendum issue beyond time  limit was defective, it was  ineffective.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Bombay<\/strong><strong> HC<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  The HC held that the appeal of the Revenue  did not give rise to any substantial question of  law and thus was dismissed<\/p>\n<p><strong>Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd<\/strong><strong> [2018] 100 taxmann.com 310 (<\/strong><strong>Delhi<\/strong><strong>) (dated <\/strong><strong>14 December, 2018<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p><strong>Writ filed for expeditious claim of refund  rejected<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The assessee  filed returns for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 claiming huge amount of refunds However, these returns  had not been processed by the AO till date.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The assessee  requested the Department for expeditious processing of returns<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The assessee  filed a writ petition on account of inaction on the part of AO in processing  income tax returns contending that same would result in  issuance of huge refunds to the assessee. The petitioner assessee sought a  direction upon the AO to expeditiously  process the refund claim and issue refund under  consideration as it was under financial stress.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Ruling of the High Court<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Under section  143(1D), processing of a return under Section 143(1)(a) is not necessary  where a notice has been issued under Section 143(2) of  the Act. <\/p>\n<p>This provision has  now been amended by the Finance Act, 2016 (with effect  from the AY 2017-18) to provide that if scrutiny notice is issued under Section  143(2), processing of return shall not be necessary before the expiry of one year from the  end of the financial year in which return is submitted.<\/p>\n<p>  &nbsp;&#9658; <strong>Critical observations of the <\/strong><strong>Delhi<\/strong><strong> HC:<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The AO has to  apply his mind to consider whether the facts and circumstances of the case, warrant some or all of the refund of the  assessee&#8217;s amounts, or if all of it needs to be withheld, whenever the assessee presses for  refund. <\/p>\n<p>This exercise should be undertaken promptly, keeping in mind the time  limit under the normal provision of Section 143 (1) expires.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Decisions in <em>Tata Teleservices  Ltd. 386 ITR 30 (<\/em><em>Delhi<\/em><em>) <\/em>and <em>Group M. Media <\/em><em>India<\/em><em>    (P.) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 106 (Bom.) <\/em>distinguished  as a reasoned order is<br \/>\n  made by AO<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Wholly  inequitable for the Assessing Officer to merely sit over the petitioner&#8217;s  request for refund citing the availability of time up  to the last date of framing the<br \/>\n  assessment under Section 143 (3). The proper  interpretation of the statute and the situation is that the AO should take up an expeditious  disposal of the question once the assessee requests for release of the refund<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Section 143(1D)  starts with a non-obstante clause and thus it overrides the one year  period in section 143(1) to issue an intimation<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The Revenue had  relied on the order whereby the it was noted that pending special  audit, it will be prejudicial to the interest of the  Revenue to process the returns without completion of the pending scrutiny<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; In the facts of  the present case, for the AYs in consideration, for AY 2014-15, the  petitioner has approached the AAR and for AYs 2015-16 and 2017-18,  scrutiny assessments are pending before the AO. The AO has  exercised discretion under<br \/>\n  Section 143(1D) not to process the returns considering  the fact that substantial demand  has been raised on completion of scrutiny assessment of  earlier years.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Under section  143(1)(d), it is the discretion of AO to grant refund wherever the possibility of issue of notice u\/s 143(2) exists<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Thus, the writ  petition of the assessee is dismissed<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; <strong>Comments:<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The decision of  the Hon&rsquo;ble Delhi High Court was in light of the pending demand,  special audit completion and completion of assessment.  The High Court observed that section 143(1D) empowered the AO to not process  the return pending issue of notice u\/s 143(2). Further, the Delhi High Court had  observed that Revenue had made out a case that processing of refunds and  consequent issue of refund will be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Notably, the High  Court had noted that the AO should not sit over the refund of the   assessee<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Thus, the  decision of the HC has considered detailed reasons for not issuing refund  in the given facts and circumstances<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Celerity Power LLP  <\/strong><strong>[2019] 174 ITD 433 (Mumbai &#8211; Trib.)(ITA No.  3637\/Mum\/2014 dated <\/strong><strong>16 November 2018<\/strong><strong>) (Mum  ITAT )<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Conversion of company into LLP (not satisfying the  conditions) results into &lsquo;transfer&rsquo;<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Issue<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Whether  conversion of company into LLP without satisfying the conditions results into a  transfer and capital gains is chargeable?<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Ruling of the Tribunal<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; The conversion of  company into LLP amounts to &lsquo;transfer&rsquo;, if the conditions of section 47(xiib)  are not satisfied<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; CIT v. Texspin  Engg. &amp; Mfg. Works [(2003) 263 ITR 345 (Bom)] and CIT v. Umicore  Finance Luxmeborg [2016] 76 taxmann.com 32\/244 Taxman  43 (Bom.) distinguished on facts &ndash; as decision on conversion of partnership firm  into company<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Section 47(xiib)  and section 47A cannot be invoked in the same year<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; As the difference  between the transfer value and cost of acquisition is Nil, provisions of  computation on conversion of company into LLP is  rendered unworkable and hence not<br \/>\n  taxable in the hands of the LLP<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Carry forward of  losses cannot be allowed, as conditions u\/s 47 are not met<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Deduction of  claim u\/s 80-IA is allowed as the deduction is allowed to the &lsquo;undertaking&rsquo; and not &lsquo;the owner of the undertaking&rsquo;<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Issue-specific Case Laws<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Capital Gains<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Sale of Unconstructed House eligible for exemption u\/s 54F &ndash; Kalpana  Hansraj &#8211; [2019] 102 taxmann.com 228 (Bombay)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee  booked a flat in 1981. The flat was not constructed for a long time. The  builder had failed to  complete the construction and faced heavy legal  disputes. The construction of the building was not complete  up to Feb 2011. The assessee sold her property in 2005.  The assessee purchased a residential house  property and claimed exemption u\/s 54F.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before  the Tribunal was whether transfer of the aforementioned property is eligible  for section 54F?<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal held  that in the peculiar facts of the case it cannot be said that the assessee  transferred a &lsquo;long<br \/>\nterm capital asset in the nature of residential house&rsquo;.  Thus, the assessee would be eligible for deduction u\/s<br \/>\n54F<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The High Court  did not find error in the order of Tribunal and upheld the same<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Date of Allotment &ndash; Letter of Allotment  (DDA Property) &ndash; Vembu Vaidyananth [2019] 101 taxmann.com 436 (Bombay)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The allotment  letter was issue to the assessee in December, 2004. The agreement was executed  in May, 2008. The flat was not constructed for a long time. The  builder had failed to complete the construction and faced heavy legal disputes. The construction of the  building was not complete up to Feb 2011. The assessee claimed the transfer as LTCG and thus eligible for  exemption u\/s 54F.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before  the Tribunal was the date of acquisition (Date of execution of agreement or  date of allotment).<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal  decided in favour of the assessee considering the date of allotment letter as  date of acquisition.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The HC dismissed  the appeal of the Revenue to hold that the date of letter of allotment can be  considered as the date of acquisition of the property relying on the  CBDT Circular No.471 dated 15-10-1986 and Circular No.672 dated 16th December, 1993<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Liquidated Damages for failure to complete  previous sale deed allowed as<\/strong><strong>expenditure wholly and exclusively in  connection to transfer &ndash; Kaushalya Devi &#8211;<\/strong><strong>[2018] 92 taxmann.com 335 (<\/strong><strong>Delhi<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee had  entered into a agreement for sale and on failure to fulfil the same, the assessee paid liquidated damages and the sale was  cancelled. On subsequent sale by assessee, the damages were claimed as an expenditure in  connection with transfer<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The High Court  held that the word &lsquo;connection&rsquo; connotes a casual connect between the<br \/>\ntransfer and expenditure and &lsquo;wholly and exclusively&rsquo;  means if the expenditure was genuine and factually expended.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; Thus, the amount  paid for liquidated damages was allowable u\/s 48(i)<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Conversion of CCPS into equity shares is  not a &lsquo;transfer&rsquo; &ndash; Periar Trading Company (P.) Ltd. &#8211; Periar Trading [2019] 174 ITD  137 (Mumbai &#8211; Trib.) \/ [2018] 100 taxmann.com  263 (Mumbai &#8211; Trib.)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  Conversion of CCPS into equity shares is not &lsquo;exchange&rsquo; and thus it will not amount to&lsquo;transfer&rsquo; u\/s 2(47). Reliance on <em>ITO v. Vijay M.  Merchant [1986] 19 ITD 510 (Mum.) <\/em>and CBDT Circular F No. 12\/1\/64-IT(A) dated 12\/05\/1984.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Note: Section 47(xb) (inserted w.e.f. A.Y.  2018-19) excludes conversion of preference shares into equity shares as not transfer<br \/>\n  <\/strong> <br \/>\n  <strong>Transfer of Trademark, Goodwil , etc. &ndash; Allocation of  consideration cannot be done by AO &ndash; Bisleri International (P.) Ltd.  [2018] 94 taxmann.com 259 (Gujarat)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee It transferred its trade mark,  goodwill, technical knowhow and franchise rights under different agreements.  The AO questioned the lower valuation of goodwill as trademark and other rights  were valued at 20 times the  goodwill.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The CIT(A) decided in favour of the  assessee as trademark, emblem, figure and even the reputation of the products  of the  company stood transferred, leaving very little by way of goodwill and the AO&rsquo;s  contention was without any scientific<br \/>\nbacking.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal and High Court upheld the view  of CIT(A) against revenue.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>(Similar view has been taken by Hon&rsquo;ble Bombay High Court in case  of Parle Soft Drink (P) Ltd which is affirmed by Supreme  Court)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>No FMV Subsitution for Tenancy Rights &ndash; Dharmakumar C. Kapadia  [2018] 96 taxmann.com 194 (<\/strong><strong>Bombay<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee had inherited tenancy rights  prior to 1981. On sale of the rights, the assessee claimed fair market value as on 1st April 1981 as the cost of  acquisition.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal held that the tenancy rights  would not be eligible for FMV substitution u\/s 55(2)(a).<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The HC upheld the decision of the Tribunal  and observed that section 55(2)(b) (provision for substitution of fair market value)  does not apply to tenancy rights. In case of tenancy rights, section 55(2)(a)  would apply (i.e. cost of acquisition would  be the actual cost of purchase or Nil).<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Consideration in lieu of right to sue is not a transfer of capital  asset and thus not chargeable to capital gains &ndash; Bhojison  Infrastructre P. Ltd. [2018] 99 taxmann.com 26 (Ahmedabad &#8211; Trib.)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The assessee entered into a development  agreement. The seller sold the land to another person. The seller and prospective  purchaser paid consideration to assessee to avoid legal dispute. The assessee  claimed that the receipt was not  from &lsquo;transfer&rsquo; of capital asset, thus not chargeable to capital gains.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The Tribunal held that the &lsquo;right to sue&rsquo;  is a &lsquo;right in <em>personam<\/em>&rsquo; and not a capital asset&rsquo;. Thus, capital gains would not be chargeable<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Section 56<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Proviso to section 56(2)(viia) &ndash;  Retrospective Applicability &ndash; <em>Aamby Valley Ltd.  [2019] 102<\/em><\/strong><em><strong> <\/strong><\/em><strong><em>taxmann.com 385 (Delhi &#8211; Trib.)<br \/>\n  <\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; During F.Y.  2011-12, the subsidiary company of the assessee got amalgamated into the  assessee company. The subsidiary company was holding  shares of many closely held<br \/>\n  companies. Upon amalgamation, the assessee received  shares held by the subsidiary   company.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; As the assessee  had paid no consideration for receipt of such shares, the AO considered the value of these shares as computed u\/R 11UA as  income u\/s 56(2)(viia).<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The proviso to  section 56(2)(viia) excluding receipt of shares under amalgamation was  applicable with effect from Assessment Year 2013-14.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; The Tribunal held  the amendment to be retrospective in nature and thus the income u\/s  56(2)(viia) was deleted<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Rights Issue &amp; Bonus Issue &ndash; Subhodh  Menon (ITA No.2776\/Mum\/2015 dated <\/strong><strong>7\/12\/18<\/strong><strong>)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  The Mumbai Tribunal has reiterated the  findings in <em>Sudhir Menon HUF (148 ITD 260) (Mum.<\/em><em> <\/em><em>ITAT) <\/em>upholding  that provisions of section 56 would not apply as:<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Rights issue &ndash;  shares did not exist prior to allotment, section 56(2)(vii) did not intend to cover rights issue, valuation date u\/R 11U is date of  receipt and shares are received on  allotment<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Bonus issue &ndash; as  it did not increase the wealth of the recipient shareholder<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Section 56<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Interpretation of section 56(2)(vii) and  (viib) &ndash; Liberal Interpretation<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Kumar Pappu Singh [2019] 101 taxmann.com 122 (Visakhapatnam &#8211; Trib.)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The assessee was  a shareholder in a company along with seven other relatives. The company had   made a rights issue. The assessee was the only  subscriber to the rights issue and shares were  issued to him at less than fair market value.  Additionally, due to the rights issue, the assessee&rsquo;s shareholding increased from 76% to 91%.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before  the Tribunal was the taxability of the income arising on account of issue of  shares at  less than FMV u\/s 56(2)(vii)<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal  observed that the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) are anti-abuse provisions  and surrender  of rights from relative is not covered u\/s 56(2)(vii).  Further, as all the shareholders are close relatives  and the entire shareholding is continued to be held by  close relatives, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii) would not apply.<\/p>\n<p><strong>  Vaani Estates Pvt. Ltd. (172 ITD 629) (Chennai ITAT)<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The assessee  company has only two shareholders (mother and daughter). The assessee company has issued shares at excessive premium.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before  the Tribunal was the taxability of the excess premium u\/s 56(2)(viib)<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal has  adopted liberal interpretation of section 56(2)(viib) to hold that the  rationale behind<br \/>\nintroduction of the provisions of Sec. 56(2)(viib) by  Finance Act, 2012 was only to deter generation and use of black money and therefore it was not  justified to invoke the provision in case where the benefit of excess premium paid by one shareholder is  enjoyed, only by her daughter being the only other shareholder in the company.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Rejection of DCF valuation by AO possible  in given facts &ndash; <em>TUV Rheinland NIFE Private<\/em><\/strong><em><strong> <\/strong><\/em><strong><em>Limited (ITA No.3160\/Bang\/2018 dated 27\/02\/2019) [TS-92-ITAT-2019(Bang)]<br \/>\n  <\/em><\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee had  issued shares at premium and the valuation was done under the Discounted Cash Flow method. The AO observed on examination of the  Valuation Report that it relied only on values certified by Management. Thus, the computed  the value as per NAV method as per Rule 11UA of IT Rules.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; On appeal, the  CIT(A) considering all the facts and issues, passed a detailed order, upholding the addition made by the AO<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; Before the  Tribunal, the issue was regarding the rejection of the DCF valuation.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal  upheld the order of the AO based on the detailed order of the AO and CIT(A). As regards the question raised on correctness or  reasonableness of the valuation report, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of Agro Portfolio  Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.2189\/Del\/2018 dated 14.05.2018<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; Thus, the  Tribunal upheld the order of the AO.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Decisions where DCF method cannot be  rejected<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; Vodafone M-Pesa  Ltd. vs. PCIT (2018) 92 Taxmann 73 (Bombay)<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; DCIT vs. M\/s.  Ozoneland Agro Pvt.Ltd. (in ITA No. 4854\/Mum\/2016 vide order dated 02.05.2018)<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; Medplus Health  Services P. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 105 (Trib. Hyd)<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; Rameshwaram  Strong Glass (P) Ltd. (in ITA No. 884\/JP\/2016 vide order dated 12.07.2018)<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Section 56(2)(viib) will apply to share  application money received prior to 1\/4\/2012, where shares are allotted are after that date &ndash; Cimex  Land and Housing Private Limited (ITA No. 5933\/DEL\/2018  dated 25\/02\/2019) [TS-93-ITAT-2019(DEL)]<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee  received share application money prior to 1st April,   2012. The shares were allotted after 1st April, 2012. The provisions of section 56(2)(viib) apply on or after 1st April, 2012<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before  the Tribunal was whether section 56(2)(viib) would apply in case where share premium is received before the date of applicability of  the section (1st April, 2012)?<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal  noted that the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) apply upon allotment of  shares.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The Tribunal  observed that the assessee is liable to justify the share premium by valuation  report under Rule 11U and Rule 11UA. Thus, the Tribunal  remanded back the matter to the AO to compute income as per valuation<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Section 68 and 69A<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Section 68<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Allotment of shares in settlement of  pre-existing liability could not be tretated as unexplainable cash credits , as no cash was  involved &ndash; V. R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd.  [2018] 96 taxmann.com 647 (Madras)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee  company had a liability due to a person. The assessee company had allotted shares in settlement of this pre-existing liability.  The AO made an addition u\/s 68 as the assessee did not offer satisfactory explanation. The  CIT(A) and Tribunal upheld the findings of the AO.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The High Court  decided in favour of the assessee that section 68 would not apply, as no cash transaction was involved.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Addition u\/s 68 upheld for huge loan  received by assessee from company having no fixed assets and declaring very low income  &ndash; Seema Jain [2018] 96 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee  received loan of Rs. 18. 45 crores from a company. The company had no tangible or intangible fixed assets and had declared  income in thousands. Also, the company had issued shares at excessive premium.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; On the facts, the  Tribunal noted that there was a doubt on the creditworthiness of the company. Further, the Tribunal had rejected the  contention that loan was repaid, as it did not prove the genuineness.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The High Court  upheld the order of the Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Section 68<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Section 56(2)(viib) and section 68 &ndash; In case of excessive premium,  where addition u\/s 68 not made due to satisfactory  explanation, the addition u\/s 56(2)(viib) could still be made &ndash; Sunrise<\/strong> <strong>Academy of Medical  Specialities  (India) (P.) Ltd. [2018]  96 taxmann.com 43 (Kerala)<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The assessee, a closely held company, had  issued shares at excessive premium. The assessee proved the  genuineness  of the subscribers.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before the High Court was  applicability of section 56(2)(viib) when addition u\/s 68 was deleted.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The High Court held that the section  56(2)(viib) would apply even if provisions of section 68 do not apply as  satisfactory explanation  was furnished<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Issue &ndash; Reliance on Object being Anti-abuse provisions &ndash; Should the  satisfactory explanation u\/s 68 suffice nonapplicability of provisions of  section 56(2)(viib), as they are anti-abuse provisions? Dichotomy in decision  in Vaani Estate  and Kumar Pappu Singh?<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Identity and Capacity of subscriber and Genuinesss &ndash; Non-residents  subscriber &ndash; Varsity Education Management Pvt.  Ltd (ITA No. 6991\/Mum\/2016) dated 24\/10\/2018<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; Compulsorily convertible preference shares  issued by assessee to Mauritius company at  excessive premium whereas equity  shares were issued to other shareholders at face value. The AO sought to tax  the difference between the issue price  and price as per share valuation reported submitted to RBI under FEMA u\/s 68.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the  AO<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The issue before the Tribunal was regarding  the addition u\/s 68<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; The ITAT noted that Hon&rsquo;ble Bombay High  Court in <em>Green Infra Ltd (392 ITR 7)(Bom) <\/em>and <em>Gagandeep  Infrastructure Pvt<\/em><em> <\/em><em>Ltd  (394 ITR 680) (Bom) <\/em>had held that no addition could be made u\/s 68 of the Act in  respect of Share premium, if the  Assessee  discharges its burden by proving the three essential ingredients, viz.,  identity of the subscriber, the capacity of  the  subscriber and the genuineness of the transaction. As the AO was satisfied will  all, the ITAT deleted the addition<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Note: The decision is for Assessment Year 2012-13. Post the  amendment w.e.f. A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee would have  prove the source of source for resident subsribers.<br \/>\n  <\/strong> <br \/>\n  <strong>Section 69A<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Unexplained Invetsment &ndash; HSBC paper leaks &ndash;  Deepak B Shah (ITA No. 6065 and 6066\/Mum\/2014) dated 30\/10\/2018<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; On receipt of  &lsquo;Base Note&rsquo; as part of Swiss leaks investigation, the AO conducted survey at  the premises of the two individuals and carried out  reassessments on the belief that foreign bank accounts were held by them. Addition was made under section 69A  on account of deposit made in HSBC Bank which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A).<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; <strong>The issue before  the Tribunal was the addition made u\/s 69A.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><strong>Ruling of the Tribunal<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n&#9658; The Tribunal  noted that the facts on record revealed that a non-resident individual from UAE  had created and constituted an overseas Discretionary  Trust. The non-resident individual had also filed an affidavit and had sworn before the UAE authorities,  that he had created the Trust with his initial contribution and none of the discretionary  beneficiaries had contributed to the funds or received any funds as distribution.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; As the  non-resident had held that HSBC Bank account was owned by him and no income  deemed to accrue or arise in India from the said bank accounts and hence his foreign income could  not be taxed in India. In view of the same, Tribunal held that the Department failed to  show any linkage of the foreign bank account with Indian money or the taxpayers and  hence addition made under section 69A of the Act by the AO was liable to be deleted.<\/p>\n<p>&#9658; As the assesse  was not the owner of the money, provisions of section 69A could not be invoked.  Thus, the ITAT deleted of the addition\n<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judicial Decisions on MCI Guidelines<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>MCI guidelines are not applicable to pharma companies<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Max Hospitals, Pitampura (WP 1334\/2013) (Delhi HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; PHL Pharma (146  DTR 149) (Mum Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Solvay Pharma  India Ltd. (169 ITD 13) (Mum Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Aristo  Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 5563 &amp; 6129\/Mum-2014) dated 26 July 2018<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Novartis  Healthcare Pvt Ltd (ITA 2786\/M\/2016) dated 21 December 2018<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; India Metronic  Pvt Ltd (ITA 1246\/M\/2016) dated 2 May 2018<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Synthes Medical  Private Limited (ITA No. 1784\/Mum\/2016 dated 13 April 2018) (Mumbai Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>CBDT Circular 5\/2012 dated <\/strong><strong>1 August 2012<\/strong><strong> is applicable prospectively<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Syncom  formulation India Ltd (ITA 6429\/M\/2012)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Macloeds  Pharmaceutical Ltd (74 Taxmann.com 250)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; UCB India Pvt Ltd  (ITA 6681\/M\/13) dated 18 May 2016<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Disallowance confirmed in light of MCI  guidelines<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Confederation of  Indian Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) (353 ITR 388 ) (Himachal Pradesh HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Kap Scan and  Diagnostic Centre (344 ITR 476) (Punjab &amp; Haryana HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Liva Health Care  (181 TTJ 433) (Mumbai Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Ochoa  Laboratories (Delhi ITAT) (166 ITD 508) (Delhi Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Transfer Pricing<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>  <strong>AMP adjustment<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Principles laid down by Special Bench in  case of LG Electronics Ltd (22 ITR 1)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; AMP is an  international transaction and has to be benchmarked separately.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Bright Line Test  (&lsquo;BLT&rsquo;) is appropriate for benchmarking the same although not prescribed under<br \/>\n  Indian laws.<\/p>\n<p>  <em>The decision of LG has been overruled by  Delhi HC in case of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications<\/em><em> <\/em><em>India Pvt. Ltd. and Maruti Suzuki India  Ltd.<br \/>\n  <\/em><br \/>\n  <strong>Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India  Pvt. Ltd (374 ITR 118) (for traders)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; BLT is not  appropriate and benchmarking was to be done under combined approach method.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; AMP to be  aggregated and benchmarked along with other international transaction<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Maruti Suzuki India Ltd<\/strong><strong><em>. <\/em><\/strong><strong>(381 ITR 117) (for manufacturers)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; AMP is not an  international transaction.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Various HC\/ITATs  in case of Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., L&rsquo;oreal India Pvt. Ltd., Whirpool India Ltd.  (381 ITR<br \/>\n  154), Bausch &amp; Lomb Eyecare (Ind) Pvt. Ltd. (381  ITR 227) etc. have held that AMP is not an  international transaction by following the ruling of  Delhi HC in case of Maruti Suzuki.<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; <strong>SLP has been  filed by the Revenue in the SC, which is pending for disposal.<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Luxotica <\/strong><strong>India<\/strong><strong> Eyewear (P) Ltd (187 TTJ 157)<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Intensity  adjustment can be carried out to determined the ALP of AMP provided the same  was done  by AO\/TPO<\/p>\n<p>  <strong><em>Note: Despite various rulings of HC\/ITAT in  favour of the Assessee holding AMP is not an international transaction,<\/em><\/strong><em><strong> <\/strong><\/em><strong><em>TPOs are still making adjustments by  applying BLT by giving different names\/terminology.<br \/>\n  <\/em><\/strong> <br \/>\n  <strong>Issue of Corporate Guarantee &amp; interest  on loan given to AE<br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>Transaction of providing corporate  guarantee is an international transaction:<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Bharti Airtel  Limited (ITA No.5816\/Del\/2012) dated 11 March 2014 (Delhi  Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Marico Ltd 70  Taxmann.com 214 (Mum Trib)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Siro Clinpharm  Private Limited (46 CCH 485) (AY 2009-10) and (ITA. No. 1269 and<br \/>\n  1493\/Mum\/2015) (AY 2010-11) dated 31 March 2016 (Mumbai Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Vivimed Labs  Ltd(ITA No 404 and 479\/Hyd\/2015) dated 2 June 2017  (Hyderabad Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Dr Reddy&rsquo;s  Laboratories Ltd (ITA.No.294\/Hyd\/2014 and ITA.No.458\/Hyd\/2015) dated 28 April 2017<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Rain Cements Ltd  (ITA No 433\/Hyd\/2016) dated 26 April 2017.<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>ALP of guarantee fee should be at 0.5%<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Manugraph India  Ltd. (ITA No. 454\/2016) dated 19 November 2018 (Bombay HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Everest Kanto  Cylinder Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 542\/Mum\/2012) dated 23 November 2012 (Mumbai<br \/>\n  Tribunal) approved by Bombay High Court in Income-tax  Appeal No 1165 of 2013 vide order dated 8<br \/>\n  May 2015<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Everest Kanto  Cylinder Ltd (ITA No. 435 of 2015) dated 18 July 2017 (Bom HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Mahindra  Intertrade Ltd (ITA No. 269\/M\/2014) dated 15 March 2017(Mumbai  Tribunal)<\/p>\n<p>  <strong>Corporate guarantee cannot be compared to  bank guarantee for determination of ALP<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Glenmark  Pharmaceuticals Ltd (ITA 1302 of 2014) dated 2 February 2017 (Bom HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Glenmark  Pharmaceuticals Ltd (260 Taxman 249) (Bom HC)<\/p>\n<p>  <strong><em>Note: The SC in case of Glenmark Pharmaceuticals  Ltd has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department<\/em><\/strong><strong><em><br \/>\n  <\/em><\/strong> <br \/>\n  <strong>Issue of Interest on loan given to AE<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  <strong>LIBOR is appropriate benchmark for interest  on loans given to AE::<\/strong><strong><br \/>\n  <\/strong><br \/>\n  &#9658; Manugraph India  Ltd. (ITA No. 454\/2016) dated 19 November 2018 (Bombay HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Videocon  Industries Ltd (ITA 1055 and 1178 of 2015) dated 21 March 2018 (Bom HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Cotton Natural  India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 233\/2014) dated 27th March 2015 (Delhi High  Court)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Tata Auto-comp  Systems Limited (374 ITR 516) (Bombay HC)<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Aditya Birla  Minacs Worlwide Limited Vs. DCIT (7033\/Mum\/2012) dated 25th March  2015 &ndash; Affirmed by  Bombay HC in ITA No. 1132 of 2015 dated 25 April 2018<\/p>\n<p>  &#9658; Everest Kanto  Cylinder Ltd. (ITA No. 294\/2016) dated 20 July 2018 (Bombay  HC)\n<\/p>\n<table width=\"103%\" border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFCC\">\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Disclaimer: <\/strong>The  contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not  constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has  been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions  herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its  affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising  out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any  actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be  distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without  express written permission of itatonline.org<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p> <script charset=\"utf-8\" type=\"text\/javascript\">\namzn_assoc_ad_type = \"responsive_search_widget\";\namzn_assoc_tracking_id = \"itatonlineorg-21\";\namzn_assoc_marketplace = \"amazon\";\namzn_assoc_region = \"IN\";\namzn_assoc_placement = \"\";\namzn_assoc_search_type = \"search_widget\";\namzn_assoc_width = \"auto\";\namzn_assoc_height = \"auto\";\namzn_assoc_default_search_category = \"\";\namzn_assoc_default_search_key = \"income tax \";\namzn_assoc_theme = \"light\";\namzn_assoc_bg_color = \"FFFFFF\";\n<\/script><br \/>\n<script src=\"\/\/z-in.amazon-adsystem.com\/widgets\/q?ServiceVersion=20070822&#038;Operation=GetScript&#038;ID=OneJS&#038;WS=1&#038;MarketPlace=IN\"><\/script><\/p>\n<div align=\"center\">\n<div class=\"\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p><a name=\"link\" id=\"link\"><\/a><br \/>\n<script async src=\"\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script><br \/>\n<!-- responsive --><br \/>\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\n     style=\"display:block\"\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-6440093791992877\"\n     data-ad-slot=\"6406297397\"\n     data-ad-format=\"auto\"><\/ins><br \/>\n<script>\n(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\n<a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/?attachment_id=5888\" rel=\"attachment wp-att-5888\">Download BCAS &#8211; Recent Judicial Decisions 2019<\/a>\n<\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script><br \/>\n<!-- responsive --><br \/>\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\n     style=\"display:block\"\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-6440093791992877\"\n     data-ad-slot=\"6406297397\"\n     data-ad-format=\"auto\"><\/ins><br \/>\n<script>\n(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n<\/script><\/p>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script><br \/>\n<!-- link-ad --><br \/>\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\n     style=\"display:block\"\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-6440093791992877\"\n     data-ad-slot=\"3536175798\"\n     data-ad-format=\"link\"><\/ins><br \/>\n<script>\n(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\n<\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>CA Rajan Vora delivered a presentation recently at the BCAS on recent important decisions in which he has analyzed several judgements and explained their nuances. A video of the presentation is available. The presentation is also available for download in pdf format<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/analysis-of-recent-important-decisions-with-video-pdf-file\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5881","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}