Month: July 2018

Archive for July, 2018


Halcrow Groups Ltd.v. ADIT ( 2018) 194 TTJ 704 /167 DTR 103(Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice -Reassessment- If the notice u/s 143(2) is issued prior to the furnishing of return by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148, the notice issued u/s 143(2) is not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said notice has to be quashed. S. 292BB does not save the assessment [ S.147) 148, 292BB ]

DCIT v. Inventaa Industries Private Limited ( 2018) 168 DTR 81 / 178 ITD 1/ 194 TTJ 657/ 65 ITR 625 ( Hyd)(Trib)(SB), www.itatonline.org

S. 2(1A): Agricultural income-Mushroom is not a ‘vegetable’, ‘plant’, ‘fruit’ or ‘animal’ but is a ‘fungus’. Anything which is produced by performing basic operations on the soil is an “agricultural product” and the income therefrom is “agricultural income”. The nature of the product and the fact that it is not a ‘plant’, ‘flower’, ‘vegetable’ or ‘fruit’ is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is whether the production is by performing some basic operations on the soil. Accordingly the income from production and sale of Mushrooms can be termed as ‘agricultural’ income . [ S.10(1)]

Naresh Sunderlal Chug v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 116 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers –CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment and also change the head of income without giving any show –cause notice . [ S.54F ]

Emmsons International Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 140 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.206AA: Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Payment to non –resident – Assessee can apply the rate prescribed under DTAA if it is beneficial to him- Provision of S.206AA does not override provisions of DTAA [ S.90,195 ]

Accord Advertising (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 111 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194I : Deduction at source – Rent –Hoarding- If a person has taken a particular space on rent and thereafter sub-lets same, fully or in part, for putting-up a hoarding, such payments would be liable for tax deduction at source under S. 194I and not under S. 194C of the Act .[ S.194C, 201(1))201(IA) ]

DCIT v. Finproject India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 82 / 194 TTJ 277/ 170 DTR 52/ 64 ITR 27 (SN) (Mum) (Trib.)

S.56: Income from other sources- Share premium- Addition cannot be made in respect of share premium received by assessee from its holding companies as said share premium was on account of capital transaction and was not an income within charging sections of Act . S 56(2)(viib) read with section 2(24)(xvi) are not made applicable to shares issued to non-residents mainly to encourage foreign investments. [ S.2(24)(xvi), 56(1) ,56 (2)(viib), 68, Companies Act, 2013 ,S,52, Companies Act, 1956 S.78 ]

Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd ( 2018) 171 ITD 74 ( Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources –Fair market value of shares- Direct Cash Flow Method (DCF) -No evidence was produced for verifying the correctness of data supplied by the assessee .AO was justified in rejecting DCF method and adopting Net Asset value method . [ R.11UA ]

DCIT v. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani. (2018) 171 ITD 144/ 66 ITR 607 / 172 DTR 17/ 195 TTJ 867 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1):Business expenditure- Settlement charges paid to SEBI without admitting or denying guilt and was paid just to settle dispute, said settlement charges/consent fee could not be equated with penalty for violation of law under Explanation 1 to S. 37(1) of the Act and is allowable as business expenditure . [Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 , S.11, 1B and of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 R.11 ]

Minilec India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 124 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 35 :Scientific research – When recognition to facility given by prescribed authority is maintained, the deduction to be allowed -Non-receipt of Form No. 3CM is a procedural lapse and is not fatal for denial of claim of deduction [ S.35(2AB]

Dayaram Khandelwal v. CIT (2018)405 ITR 569/ 165 DTR 425/302 CTR 441 (MP) (HC)

S. 273A : Penalty – Commissioner – Power to reduce or waive -Suspicious Long term capital gains- Levy of penalty is held to be justified. Failure to produce any evidence / document to show that it was called genuine hardship financially or in any manner was not furnished – Rejection of waiver application was held to be justified [ S.10(38), 45 , 271(1)(c)]