Month: March 2019

Archive for March, 2019


Sir Mohd. Yusuf Trust v. ACIT( 2019) 178 DTR 73 / 199 TTJ 902 (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonlie.org

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- stamp valuation-The adoption of stamp valuation as the sale consideration is not justified in absence of any evidence that the sale consideration was more than the value shown in the agreement-The AO has not brought on record that the property under sale was not was under various encumbrances and the assessee was having the absolute marketable title of the said property- Addition is held to be not valid.[S. 45]

Gokavarapu Venkata Satya Durga Prasad v. Addl. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 14 (Visakha)(UO)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty-Accepts any loan or deposit–loan received from father – same could be treated as gift and not loan – levy of penalty unjustified.

Geeta Shroff (Dr.) v. Dy. CIT (2018) 67 ITR 711 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Depreciation on land-Bona fide mistake -Voluntarily agreed to surrender tax on value of depreciation wrongly taken on land–Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 32]

Great Heights Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 67 ITR 424 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Rental income –Business income –Income from house property-Every loss of Revenue as a consequence of an order of AO could not be treated as prejudicial to interests of Revenue – Revision is held to be not valid. [S.22, 28(i)]

Garg Brothers P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 25 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO framed assessment as per law-Even if it had resulted in loss to revenue, said decision of AO could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 153A]

Ganpati Plaza v. ITO (2018) 165 DTR 25 / 193 TTJ 86 (Jaipur )(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Cost of construction-Payment only on account of architecture fee-Estimate of value is not justified -Matter remanded. [S. 142A]

Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 68 ITR 19 (SN) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Infrastructure development- while computing deduction loss of one eligible unit shall not be set off or adjusted against profit of another eligible unit.

Harbinder Singh Chimni v. Dy. CIT (2018) 68 ITR 73 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence -More than one house – Amendment brought in S.. 54 to limit the exemption to one Residential unit is applicable from AY .2015-16 on wards. [S. 45]

Ghanshyam Das Thakawani v. ITO (2018) 68 ITR 61 (SN)(Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 48 : Capital gains–Computation–Long term capital gains- Indexation–Once factum of construction was accepted then claim of cost of construction could not be rejected out rightly without examining correctness of amount of claim. [S. 45]

GIL Mauritius Holdings Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (IT) (2018) 196 TTJ 896 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-For considering the permanent establishment in Article 5(2)(i) the threshold duration is 9 months-Income is not chargeable to tax in India-DTAA-India–Mauritius. [S. 90, Art. 5(2)(i), 7]