Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


Dy. CIT v. Calance Software (P) Ltd ( 2017) 82 taxmann.com 390/ . (2018) 191 TTJ 259 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer Pricing – Most appropriate method -Back to back transactions and solitary transaction-Matter restored to TPO .

Amit Parekh. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 213 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Mere availment of house building loan by assessee from bank for purchasing a new residential unit could not act as a disqualification for claim of exemption .[ S.45 ]

Jasvinder Hans. v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 241 / 164 DTR 249 (Asr) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Assessee could raise objection to valuation through his return of income, only in the assessment proceedings . No universal principle with regard to being heard in the matter can be laid down and it all depends upon the language of provision and object and purpose of it [ S.45 ]

Dy. CIT v. Central Bank of India (2018) 191 TTJ 265/ 161 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains –Business income- Sale of shares – Following the rule of consistency, the income from sale of shares is assessable as capital gains and not as business income. [ S.28(i) ]

ACIT v. Karuna Estates & Developers. (2018) 170 ITD 249 (Visakh) (Trib.)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible – Excessive or unreasonable –Firm -Partner- When partners of the firm contribute land as stock in trade though provision of S.45(3) would not be applicable , AO can examine reasonableness of payment to partners [ S.45(3) ]

Eshan Minerals (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 753 (Pune)(Trib.)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Purchase of raw materials- Not liable to deduct tax at source [S.194C ]

ACIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells. (2018) 170 ITD 267 / 196 TTJ 355/ ( 2019) 174 DTR 289(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Professional fees paid to foreign company to know about tax law applicable in that Country could not be taxed in India as per Art 14 of the OECD Model Tax Convention hence not liable to deduct tax at source.

Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 22/163 DTR 259 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Interest under Jharkhand VAT Act, 2005 being compensatory nature is allowable as deduction. Penalties being not compensatory nature is held to be not allowable [ Jharkhand VAT Act , 2005 S. 30(1), 30(3), 30(4)(d),63(3) ]

ITO v. Metaoxide (P.) Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 235 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Though property remained vacant during relevant previous year benefit of S.23(1)(c ) is available . [ S.23(1) ( c ) ]

Owais M.Husain v ITO (2018) 194 TTJ 102/ 167 DTR 49( Mum) (Trib)

S.23: Income from house property- Annual value -Deemed rent to be computed on the basis of Municipal rateable value and not on the basis of market rent [ S.22 ]