Month: July 2018

Archive for July, 2018


Kalaignar TV (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 49 (Mad)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – No coercive steps should be taken for recovery of outstanding tax demand, till expiry of period of limitation for filing an appeal.[ S.253 ]

Bright Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 29 /( 2019) 417 ITR 356 (Karn)( HC) Editorial: Affirmed by division bench Bright Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2019) 417 ITR 360 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay -On payment of 20% of original tax demanded , notice issued u/s 226(3) of the Act is directed to be vacated . [ S.220 , 226(3) ]

CIT (A) v. Bijapur District Central co -Operative Bank Ltd (2018) 256 Taxman 51 (Karn)(HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Bijapur District Central Co-Opertaibe Bank Ltd ( 2019) 260 Taxman 297 (SC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities –Co –operative society- Banking business-Interest paid to members on time deposits is not required to deduct tax at source .

Oriflame India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 37/( 2019) 173 DTR 285 / 306 CTR 319(Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Comparable- when the Tribunal accepted the plea that functionally dissimilarity, remanding the matter to TPO was held to be not justified – Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merit [ S.254(1) ]

CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 16 (Bom)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price- When there is a difference in level of capacity utilization of assessee and level of capacity utilization of comparable, then adjustment would be required to be made to profit margin of comparable on account of difference in capacity utilization in terms of rule 10-B (1)(e)(iii)

PCIT v. Akzo Noble India Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 1 / ( 2019) 413 ITR 79(Cal)(HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Expenses on restructuring of business is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.Sale of one of unit- Expendiure is allowable .

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 24/ 168 DTR 345 / 304 CTR 981 (Delhi)(HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure-Capital or revenue – Software -Expenditure incurred on acquiring licences to use software which did not confer any enduring benefit hence allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Aruna Sunrise Hotels Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 43 (Mad)( HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Amount paid to cane growers in excess of price determined in Sugarcane Control order, to be allowed as deduction.

CIT v. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (2018)406 ITR 406/ 256 Taxman 32 (Mad)( HC)

S.32:Depreciation-Printer being a part of computer, is eligible for depreciation at higher rate of 60 per cent.

CIT (A) v. Bijapur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd (2018) 256 Taxman 51 (Karn)( HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Bijapur District Central Co-Opertaibe Bank Ltd ( 2019) 260 Taxman 297 (SC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Co –operative society- Banking business- Accrual- Interest on doubtful debts or Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) without such interest being actually received or credited in profit & loss account of assessee- Not required to pay tax on interest income .[ S.43D ]