Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


PCIT v. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 137/ 257 Taxman 359/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 105/ 174 DTR 270 (Cal) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Development agreement- Transfer and right to possession of developer does not arise prior to completion of construction and apportionment effected- Quantum of depreciation based on facts -Revision was held to be not valid . [ S. 2(47(v), 32, 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1953 S. 53A ]

Nokia India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 20 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 153 : Assessment –Limitation – When seven issues were before Tribunal, Tribunal remanding of only five issues- Time Limit specified in S.153(2A) is applicable not S.153 (3)(ii)of the Act-Order is held to be not valid .[ S. 153(2A), 153(3)(ii) ]

Marwadi Shares And Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 49/ 168 DTR 296/ 304 CTR 899 (Guj) (HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed , due to low tax effect , Dy. CIT v. Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd. (2023) 294 Taxman 600 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment —Reassessment notice issued would remain in operation unless it is specifically withdrawn, quashed or gets time barred Subsequently- Subsequently Assessing Officer desired to withdraw of notice without issuing any formal withdrawal of notice — The law does not recognise two parallel assessments- In the absence of withdrawal of the first notice of reassessment, the proceedings would survive -Second notice of Reassessment is held to be not valid.[ S.148 ]

Dinesh Kumar Jain (Late) (Through Legal Heir Ankit Jain) v. PCIT (2018) 407 ITR 65/169 DTR 371/ 304 CTR 877 (Delhi) (HC)

S.69: Unexplained Investments — Unexplained Cash — Construction of building –Withdrawal from bank and redeposit-Explanation was not satisfactory- Addition as unexplained investments is held to be justified .[ S.69A ]

PCIT v. Swastik Construction. (2018) 407 ITR 42 (Guj) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Receipt towards payment for Contract cannot be assessed as unexplained cash-simply because notices could not be served upon the sub-contractor, the transactions could not be held non-genuine .

B. R. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 407 ITR 87/ ( 2019) 306 CTR 668 (Mad) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share application money – Persons of insignificant means — Neither the creditworthiness of the creditors nor the genuineness of the transaction stood explained- Order of Tribunal up holding addition is confirmed .

C. Aryama Sundaram. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1/ 258 Taxman 10/ 171 DTR 295 / 305 CTR 567 (Mad) (HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence -Construction of residential house – Cost of land is also form cost of residential house –Not necessary that same money from sale of residential asset must be used .[S. 45 ]

CIT v. Aditya Kumar Jajodia. (2018) 407 ITR 107 (Cal) (HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains – Property inherited under Will — Amount paid for discharge of encumbrances —Allowable as deduction .[ S. 45, 55 ]

PCIT v. Swastik Construction. (2018) 407 ITR 42 (Guj) (HC)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source –
Payment of labour charges through labour contractor — No contract between assessee and sub-contractor — Not liable to deduct tax at source-No disallowance can be made .[ S.194C ]

Indus Motor Company Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 112 /253 Taxman 97 / 161 DTR 377 /301 CTR 715 (Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to revenue, Dy. CIT v. Indus Motor Co. (P) Ltd ( 2018) 257 Taxman 259/ 406 ITR 19 (St.) ( SC)/ 257 Taxman 559 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue- Business carried on leased premises – Expenditure on repairs and refurbishing is revenue expenditure — Expenditure on erecting structures —Matter remanded – The court also directed that since the lease deeds produced before the court were not registered the Deputy Commissioner was to impound the documents and refer them to the District Registrar for proper stamping and the assessee would also be obliged to register the deeds. [ S.32(1)]