Month: October 2018

Archive for October, 2018


ITO v. Surendra R. Kharbanda (Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 80IC: Special category States – Manufacture of watches -Assembling will amount to manufacture – Allegation of the Dept that manufacture is not possible as the assessee has less number of employees, no sophisticated machinery and less electricity consumption cannot be the ground to reject the claim of the assessee.

Sunshine Metal & Alloys v. ITO (Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits- Bogus share capital-If (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned back to these parties in cash, it means the assessee has discharged the primary onus cast upon it to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of transactions- Additions can not be made as cash credits.

DCIT v. Moni Kumar Subha (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatoline.org

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- Stamp valuation- Form v/s Substance -Security deposit was rightly apportioned between short term and long term capital gains- Interest-free security deposit cannot be treated as ‘full value of consideration- The amendment to include assessable value as full value consideration was inserted w.e.f. 01/10/2009 and, thus, the value assessable as per stamp value authority cannot be applied for taking full value consideration of the property for the year under consideration. Accordingly the question of referring the matter to the Valuation Officer in terms of section 50C(2) also does not arise. [S. 2(14, 45 ]

DCIT v. Moni Kumar Subha (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatoline.org

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Notional interest on interest-free security deposit cannot be added while computing annual value [ S.23(1) (b), 23(1)(ii) ]

ITO v. Urban Improvement Trust (2018) 409 ITR 1/ 259 Taxman 61 / 171 DTR 81/ 305 CTR 121 (SC),www.itatonline.org/Editorial: From the Judgments , CIT v. Urban Improvement Trust , Alwar ( 2018) 171 DTR 98 / 305 CTR 138( Raj) (HC)/ Urban Improvement Trust , Kota v. ITO ( 2018) 171 DTR 98/ 305 CTR 138 ( Raj) (HC)/ Urban Improvement Trust , Kota v. ITO ( 2018) 171 DTR 109/ 305 CTR 149 ( Raj) (HC)

S. 10(20) :Local authority – Urban improvement Trust constituted under Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act , 1959 is not local authority , hence not entitle to exemption – The functional test” as laid down in UOI v. R.C. Jain, (1981) 2 SCC 308 is not applicable after amendment of section 10 (20) of the Act by Finance Act , 2002 . [ S.10(20A ]

DCIT v. Moni Kumar Subha (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatoline.org

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Merely because the shares are held by the minor son of the assessee and the loan is received by the assessee it cannot be established that assessee is the beneficial shareholder of 10% or more –Loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend- Alternatively the amount received was advance rent in the Course of business hence cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

Yatin Prakash Telang v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 705/ 170 DTR 329/195 TTJ 892 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence-Purchased new residential house before sale of another residential house owned -Investment is made within the stipulated period and the investment was more than the capital gains earned- Entitle to exemption. [ S.45,54F ]

Dy. CIT v. UMIL Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 713 / 170 DTR 441/ 196 TTJ 91(Kol)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains –Long term capital loss- Shares sold to a group concern in off market transaction at same price as was quoted on stock exchange on relevant date, loss incurred from said sale transactions was to be allowed as long term capital loss.[S.2(29B ]

P.R. Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 683/ 196 TTJ 494 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 35 : Scientific research expenditure – Retrospective cancellation of approval, donor’s claim of deduction could not be denied as at the time of receipt of donation institute was benefitted by the approval as per S.35(1)(ii). [ S. 35(1)(ii) ]

Dy. CIT v. UMIL Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 713 /170 DTR 441/196 TTJ 91(Kol)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income –Net of interest-Benefits of netting of interest under rule 8D(2)(ii) be allowed without even emphasising on need of having any inextricable link between interest earned and interest paid prior to 2-6-2016. [ R.8D(2)(ii) ]