Month: November 2018

Archive for November, 2018


CIT v. S. K. D. New Standard Coaching Institute (2018) 407 ITR 529 (All) (HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Undisclosed income — Amount surrendered in the course of survey- Merely on the basis of statement in the course of search or survey addition cannot be made, if the assesseee is able to explain the differences- Actual concealment was less than the amount surrendered -Deletion on the basis of explanation is held to be valid . [ S. 132,133A ]

Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) (HC)

S.147:Reassessment —Subsequent receipt of tax evasion report from Investigation Wing of Income-Tax Department — Notice After Considering Report —Notice is valid – Error in name of the assessee in notice – Reply by assessee- Human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid and no prejudice had been caused- No prejudice to the assessee – Notice cannot be invalidated [ S. 143(1), 148, 292B ]

Rakesh Gupta v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 213 / 303 CTR 670/167 DTR 265/101 CCH 318 (P&H) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment — Client code modification -Information from investigation wing regarding evasion of tax by assessee —Notice is held to be valid .[ S. 133A,148 ]

ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd ( 2018) 407 ITR 642 / 304 CTR 149( Mad) (HC) Editorial: Decision of the single judge in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 / 270 CTR 505 / 225 Taxman 35 (Mad.)(HC) is affirmed .

S.144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Transfer Pricing Officer – Draft assessment order- Reference to TPO – Failure to comply with statutory requirement under S.144C, defects cannot be cured by issuing corrigendum – Order of assessment is held to be void . [S.92CA, 143(3), 292B ]

PCIT v. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India P. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 450/304 CTR 113 / 169 DTR 113 //96 taxmann.com 237(Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India P. Ltd v.PCIT ( 2019) 261 Taxman 451 (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Difference between Knowledge process outsourcing and business process outsourcing- The conclusion of the Tribunal was justified and on facts the Tribunal was correct in excluding the comparable companies- Explanation to S. 92B By Finance Act, 2012 — Delay in realisation of trade debt — Transfer pricing provisions is applicable [ S.92B ]

CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 407 ITR 639 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 406 ITR 37 ( St)

S. 92A : Transfer pricing – Associated enterprises -Supplier of assessee is not manufacturer — Assessee and supplier Partnership is not controlled by individuals — Neither of Firms holding 10 Per Cent. interest in each other- Not associated enterprises .[ S.92C ]

CIT v. R. Prakash, Dhanya Foods. (2018) 405 ITR 261/ 304 CTR 333/ 167 DTR 229 (Ker) (HC)

S. 80HH :Newly established industrial undertakings – Back ward areas –Processing of cashew nuts in own factory and Industrial undertaking of sister concerns in backward areas —Entitle to deduction .

Gopal Iron And Steel Co. (Guj) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 407 ITR 533 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee; Gopal Iron And Steel Co. (Guj) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 402 ITR 29 ( St)

S.68:Cash credits — Share capital — Genuineness of investors in shares were not satisfactorily explained — Order of Tribunal is affirmed .[ S.260A ]

CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 407 ITR 639 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 406 ITR 37 ( St)

S.68 : Cash credits – Interest- Deletion of addition is held to be justified – Provision for forward contract -Question of fact [ S. 37(1) ,260A.]

CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta. (2018) 407 ITR 492 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Haresh D. Mehta ( 2018) 406 ITR 494 ( SC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Loan – Produced details like copies of permanent account number cards, returns, balance-sheets with all the annexure and bank accounts before the Assessing Officer, that two of the creditors not only appeared before the Assessing Officer, but had also admitted giving loan and that there was nothing suspicious or doubtful in the version of those persons -Deletion of addition was held to be justified – Transportation charges – tax deducted at source, payments through account payee cheques, proper addresses and confirmation of account with permanent account numbers and gross receipts from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai on account of supply of vehicles in the financial year- Merely because the parties were not physically present before the Assessing Officer, such an addition could not have been made – Deletion of addition was held to be justified . [ S.133(6), 260A ]