Month: June 2019

Archive for June, 2019


Anand Isher Amar Charitable Cancer & Multi-Speciality Hospital Society. v. CIT (2019) 176 ITD 424/ 180 DTR 170 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 12A : Registration–Trust or institution-Medical relief- Rejection of application for registration merely on the ground that activities envisaged in aims and objects of assessee-society had not been carried out is held to be not valid -Matter remanded. [S.2(15), 12AA]

Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. v. ACIT(IT) (2019) 69 ITR 247 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty– Non-resident–Sale of software -Copyrighted products–Not liable to tax as royalty–DTAA-India-Ireland. [Art. 12]

Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB v. DCIT (IT) (2019) 176 ITD 390 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Non-Resident-Royalty-Computer software-Transfer of copyrighted software-consideration would not amount to ‘royalty’ or fees for ‘included services’ or ‘technical services’-Not taxable in India– Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India–Sweden.[S.9(1)(i), Art. 12]

Devineni Avinash.v .PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 28 / 177 DTR 428/ 308 CTR 350(T&AP)(HC) Devineni Lakshmi (Smt.) v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 28/ 177 DTR 428 /308 CTR 650 (T&AP)(HC)

S. 2(ea): Assets-Urban land held as stock–in trade–Shown as investment-Liable to wealth tax- No substantial question of law. [S. 2(ea)(v), 2(m)]

Karnail Singh v. UOI (2019) 412 ITR 305/ 309 CTR 425 / 180 DTR 37(Pat.)(HC)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Repayment of deposits or Loans-Issuance of notice on 27-11-2014-Passing of final order on 21-9-2016—Barred by limitation. [S. 154, 269T, 271E]

CIT v. Virgo Industries. (2019) 412 ITR 146/ 178 DTR 300 (P&H)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Claim for 100 Per Cent. Deduction-Bonafide claim–Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 80IC]

B. Loganathan v. ITO (2019) 412 ITR 642/ 180 DTR 272 / 311 CTR 107(Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Depreciation-Voluntary withdrawal of claim during course of assessment proceedings- Does not mean that assessee accepted guilt or giving wrong or false explanation-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 32]

Skyline Builders v. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 182/ 179 DTR 165 / 309 CTR 415 / 265 Taxman 38 ( Mag.)(Ker.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Merger–Limitation-Merger of assessment order in appellate order—Revision is bad in law- Order of assessment in 2005— Revision in 2009—Barred by limitation-Question regarding limitation can be raised for first time Before High Court. [S.80IB, 153A, 251, 260A]

CIT v. Venus Woollen Mills. (2019) 412 ITR 188/ 179 DTR 288/ 310 CTR 117 (P&H)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Survey – Admission of additional income-Assessment order was passed without enquiry—Revision is held to be valid-Central Board of Direct Taxes is directed to issue necessary instructions to all the Assessing Officers in cases of search and seizure or where survey operations have been carried out by the Department and surrender made or concealed income detected, to ensure proper scrutiny of such cases and discuss reasons for rejecting or accepting the books of account of the assessee and not to merely record in slipshod or cursory manner that “the books of account produced and test checked” as done by the Assessing Officer. [S.119, 132, 133A]

Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessment after detailed enquiry-Income from house property– Income from other sources- Notice of revision is not valid. [S. 143(3)]