Month: June 2019

Archive for June, 2019


DCIT v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd ( 2019) 200 TTJ 213 / 73 ITR 194 / 179 DTR 105(Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty – Payment for ‘bandwidth services’ is not assessable as ‘royalty’– Amount received by RJIPL from assessee for providing standard bandwidth services was its ‘business profits’- In the absence of its business connection or PE in India could not be brought to tax in India- DTAA-India–Singapore . [S. 90 , 195, 195A, Art. 7,12]

Adidas Sourcing Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 175 DTR 245 / 198 TTJ 130 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment of Income–Revised return- Reimbursement of expenses-Information with respect to the impugned transaction was duly disclosed in notes to computation annexed along with original return of income and the assesse had offered a part of income in revised return of income to tax, penalty could not levied.

Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 57 / 197 TTJ 915 (Delhi.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Reassessment- Merger – Since the second round of reassessment proceedings were on the same set of facts as the first round, the same were dropped by the AO and thus the first reassessment order stood merged with the second.- Thus, the said order cannot be revised under Section 263 of the Act since only the valid reassessment order can be revised. [S.143(1), 147, 148]

Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30/ 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib) Superior Buildwell P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30/ 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Reassessment – Invalid reassessment order cannot be revised – Revision u/s 263 cannot be made if reassessment u/s 147 was invalid, as reassessment was made without issue of notice u/s 143(2) [ S.143(2), 147]

Welspun India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 617 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Powers-Unexplained expenditure-Opportunity of cross examination-powers of Commissioner (Appeals) are co-terminus with powers of Assessing Officer and if Assessing Officer failed to discharge its functions properly and conduct proper cross-examination and other enquiry, Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have allowed cross-examination of said parties Matter remanded back for fresh consideration. [S. 69C]

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2019) 69 ITR 88 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Shortfall in deposit of TDS-Adjusted against the excess deposit in earlier years–No interest u/s. 201(1A)-Net result after adjustment is excess deposit of TDS by assessee. [S. 201(IA), 245]

Globe Transport Corporation v. ACIT (2019) 69 ITR 69 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 153 : Assessment–Limitation–Order of assessment passed within time but dispatched after expiry of time limit, Assessment held to be barred by limitation. [S. 153(2A)].

ACIT v. Sukhamani Cotton Industries (2019) 69 ITR 138 (Indore) (Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Notice–Reassessment without issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) is invalid and liable to be quashed. [S. 148]

ACIT v. Kad Housing P. Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 550 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-AO had made elaborate enquiry during original assessment and the Assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts–Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 68, 148]

ACIT v. Sodexo Food Solutions India P. Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 119 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Adjustment ought to be made only on proportionate value of the international transaction and could not be made at an entity level.