Month: January 2019

Archive for January, 2019


CIT v. Reebok India Company. (2018) 409 ITR 587 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: Reebok India Company v. Dy CIT ( 2017) 56 ITR 211 ( Delhi) (Trib) is affirmed.

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Commercial expediency – Interest free advance to third parties -Interest paid is held to be allowable as deduction .

CIT v. Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust. (2018) 409 ITR 591 / ( 2019) 261 Taxman 229(Guj) (HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Accumulation of income- Explanation of purposes for which funds accumulated was furnished during course of assessment proceedings is a sufficient compliance . [ S.11(2), form No 10 ]

CIT v. Shanti Devi Educational Trust. (2018) 409 ITR 522 /( 2019) 261 Taxman 339(P&H) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Shanti Devi Educational Trust ( 2018) 405 ITR 20 (St.)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution- Registration u/s 12AA is not mandatory to claim exemption.[ S.12AA, 10 (23C(iiiad)]

Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Hyd) (Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share premium-The fact that the premium is abnormally high as per test of human probabilities is not sufficient-The AO has to lift the corporate veil & determine whether any benefit is passed on to the shareholders/directors. Directions issued to AO to establish whether assessee company was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to shareholders/directors- Tribunal directed the AO to verify all the funds and cash flow management of the company for both AY. 2009-10 & 2010-11. AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing of benefit to the shareholders/directors- Addition was deleted subject to verification . [S.28(iv),56 ]

PCIT v. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -The second proviso to S. 40(a)(ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect.[ S.201(1) ]

GE Energy Part Inc v. CIT( 2019)411 ITR 243/ 306 CTR 417/ 174 DTR 25 (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Genbacher Gmbh & Co v .CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Engine Services Malaysia Sdn Bhd v .CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Packed Power Inc v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Transportation Parts LLC v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Engine services Distribution LLC v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Engine services Inc v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Japan Ltd v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Electronic Canada Company v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Aircraft Engine Services Ltd v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Aviation Services Operation LLP v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Aviation Materials LP v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Caledonian Ltd v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Electronic Power Systems Inc v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org General Electric Canada Company v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Multilin v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org GE Specific Ltd v. CIT (Delhi) (HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection -Fixed place permanent establishment- Facts of the case clearly point to the fact that the assessee’s employees were not merely liaisoning with clients and the headquarters office. E-mail communications and chain mails indicate that with respect to clients and possible contracts of GE with Reliance CS-1, GE Oil & Gas, Bongaigaon Refinery, Draft LOA for WHRU (E-mail from Andrea Alfani (GE Overseas) to Vivek Venkatachalam (GEIIPL) and Riccardo Procacci (GEII) on proposed & connected matters mail to send Reliance, including comments to RIL on the proposed letter of acceptance and relevant attachments. Also, asked them whether they wanted to send the e-mail themselves to RIL or for it to be sent directly-These appear to show important role for Vivek and Riccardo in the negotiating process – These suggest that substantive work on the BHEL contract was done in India by amix of GE overseas and GE India team – Kind of activity i.e . manufacture and supply of highly specialised and technically customised equipment , the “ core activity “ of developing the customer (identifying a client) approaching that customer , communicating the available options , discussing technical and financial terms of the agreement , even price negotiations , needed collaborative process in which the potential client along with GE’s India employees and its experts , had to intensely negotiate the intricacies of the technical and commercial parameters of the articles etc .- Considering all the aspects the it is clearly revealed that the GE carried on business in India through its fixed place of business ( i.e. the premises ) through premises . Accordingly the order of the Tribunal is affirmed – The assessee cannot selectively quote on certain parts of the commentary –rather, must read the spirit of the entire commentary- Order of Tribunal is affirmed – DTAA-India- USA [ S.90,art.4, 5(1),5(3) ]

ACWT v. M.R. Jayaram (2019) 174 ITD 1 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 2(ea) : Asset- Agricultural land–Capital gains-Measurement of distance -Distance of land from municipal limits aerially, not by road, and which have been substituted by Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1-4-2014 are prospective in operation-Conversion of land from Agricultural use to non agricultural use though the land was converted into non-agricultural purposes, cultivation of the land for agricultural purposes till the date of sale continued unabated and as such, the land should be treated as agricultural land-Not liable to wealth tax. [S. 17, 2(14)(iii)(b)]

Golla Narayana Rao v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 67 / 176 DTR 201/ 198 TTJ 407(Visakha)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty–Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Business of civil construction-Adjustment of loan towards sale of flat– Provision is held to be applicable–levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S.269SS, 269T]

ACIT v. Vishal Agarwal. (2019) 174 ITD 125/ 175 DTR 127/ 198 TTJ 180 (Kol.)(Trib.)ACIT v. Shailaja Park ( P) Ltd (2019) 175 DTR 127/195 TTJ 180 (Kol) (Trib.) ACIT v. Vikash Agarwal (2019) 175 DTR 127 /195 TTJ 180(Kol) (Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Disclosure of undisclosed income-Disclosed manner of earning of income and paid tax along with interest-liable to pay penalty at 10% and not at 30%. [S. 132(4)]

Golla Narayana Rao v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 67 / 176 DTR 201/ 198 TTJ 407(Vishakha)(Trib.)

S. 269T : Repayment of loans and deposits-Otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft–Provision is applicable in case of adjustment of loan towards sale of flats- Payment of interest in cash provision is not applicable. [S. 271E]