Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


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)]

ACIT v. WTI Advance Technology Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 11 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors – Outsourced non-technical work such as collection of data to various contractors, said work being in nature of ‘works contract’ and cannot be considered as technical services – Justified in deducting tax at source under S.194C.[ S.194J ]

Abad Trust. v. ADIT (E) (2018) 171 ITD 50 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 161 : Liability of representative assessee -Income from house property- Shares of beneficiaries are definite – Trust cannot be assessed separately at maximum rate- Tax on the share of each beneficiary will have to be separately calculated as if it formed a part of the beneficiary’ s income. Tax payable by the Trust will be the sum total of the tax calculated on the share of each beneficiary . [ S.22, 26 , 164 ]

Ardent Steel Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 405 ITR 422/ 302 CTR 362/166 DTR 33 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)

S.148: Reassessment-Notice -Issue of notice at old address after expiry of period of limitation ,in spite of change in the official record by updating PAN data base- Reassessment is held to be bad in law [ S.147 ,292BB ]

Indus Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 26 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S.115JB: Book profit- Depreciation charged at 80% – Restricting the claim of depreciation on windmills to 5.28 per cent as per Schedule XIV of Companies Act, 1956 is held to be justified [ S.32 ]

Shailendra Kamalkishore Jaiswal. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 6 (Nag.) (Trib.)

S.56: Income from other sources -Gift- Provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) are applicable to only those transactions which are entered into after 1-10-2009 [ S.56(2)(vii)(b) ]

Huawei Telecommunication (India) Company (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 19 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Warranty provision- Services by way of repair and replacement for a pre-defined period, said provision was eligible for deduction [ S.145 ]