Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


Titagarh Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 559/ 170 ITD 361 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Sale of plant and machinery along with capital WIP, cost incurred on capital WIP was required to be reduced as ‘cost of acquisition’ while arriving at taxable amount of capital gain-Revision is held to be not valid [ S. 2(14),50, 74 ]

ACIT v. Swiftsol (I) (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 577 (Nag.) (Trib.)

S.68: Cash credits-Share capital- Share premium- Share capital and share premium received from investing companies cannot be assessed as cash credits merely because it failed to produce directors of investing companies personally for confirmation, when other evidence such as their address, PAN, confirmation letters etc. was produced . [ S.131 ]

ITO v. Upkar Retail (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 626/ 170 DTR 233 /195 TTJ 743 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 43(5) : Speculative transaction – Derivatives – Losses – Set off from one source against income from other source under same head of income- Loss incurred on account of derivatives would be deemed business loss under proviso to S. 43(5) and not speculation loss, Explanation to S. 73 would not be applicable- Interpretation- Two non jurisdictional High Court taking different view-View favourable to the assessee is followed . [ S.70, 73(4) ]

ACIT v. Dattatray Poultry Breeding Farm (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 615 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Outstanding sundry creditors for several years- Failure to produce correct address, PAN Numbers, or confirmations- Merely because liabilities were shown in books of account and not written back, could not be held to be subsisting liability.[ S.133(6) ]

Customer Lab Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 552 / 170 DTR 225/ 195 TTJ 841 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident – Royalty – Fes for technical services – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Affiliation fee-One time payment to US. company, which did not provide for transfer of technology cannot be assessed as royalty –Not liable to deduct tax at source -No disallowance can be made – DTAA-India- USA [ S.9(1)(vi) ,195 ,Art .12 ]

GMR Airport Developers Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 595 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S.37(1):Business expenditure- Capital or revenue- Depreciation-One time consolidated fee paid to holding company –Held to be capital in nature – Depreciation is allowable . [ S.32(1)(ii) ]

GMR Airport Developers Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 595 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Capital or revenue- Annual licence fee payable on the basis of turnover achieved is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure .

ACIT v. Swiftsol (I) (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 577 (Nag.) (Trib.)

S. 28(iv) : Business income – Value of any benefit or perquisites – Converted in to money or not -Purchase of shares of a non-related company at a price less than fair value as it was a loss making concern cannot be assessed as benefit or perquisites . [ S.2(24 ) ]

ACIT v. K.P. Singh. (2018) 171 ITD 638 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend-Non -Holding cumulative preference shares with fixed rate of dividend- Advance of loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

M. Lodha Impex v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 659/ 170 DTR 113 / 195 TTJ 761 /65 ITR 69 (SN) (Indore) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment – Assessment has to be framed as per provisions -Instruction No. 13 of 2006 would not override the provisions-Revised return claiming refund of tax deduction at source- Assessment order as framed by the Assessing Officer is contrary to the provisions of law and beyond the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is beyond the time prescribed under the law and is illegal. Accordingly, the assessment is quashed. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the refund with interest as per law. [ S.119,143(2) ]