Month: June 2019

Archive for June, 2019


PCIT v. J.P. Morgan Services India (P) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 141/ 182 DTR 373 / 311 CTR 15( Bom) (HC) .

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price-Mutually agreed procedure (MAP) adopted by Governments of India and USA in relation to US based transactions for determination of ALP could also be adopted for determining ALP of on –US based transactions.

PCIT v. Green Associates (2019) 105 taxmann.com 79 / 263 Taxman 239 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Green Associates (2019) 263 Taxman 238 (SC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Land was in the original owner- Undertaken development of housing project at their own risk and cost-Entitle to deduction.[S. 2(47)]

CIT v. Muthuramalingam Modern Rice Mill (2019) 263 Taxman 294 / 307 CTR 816/ 176 DTR 177(Mad.) (HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings -Conversion of paddy into rice is a manufacturing activity-Entitle to deduction. [S. 80IB].

CIT v. Ranjit Projects (P.) Ltd. (2019) 104 taxmann.com 391 / 263 Taxman 4 ( Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is rejected ,CIT v. Ranjit Projects (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 3 (SC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Infrastructure development- Agreement with a nodal agency established by State Government Deduction cannot be denied. [S. 80IA(4)]

PCIT v. Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 255 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Gujarat Paghuthan Energy Corporation (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 254 (SC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Gross or net-Net of interest excluding expenditure incurred in earning such interest income which should be excluded for purpose of deduction.

Sri. Kavitha Jewellers v. DCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 185/ 309 CTR 82/ 177 DTR 100 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money–Search–Excess jewellery found which belongs to partners-Addition cannot be made in the assessment of firm. [S. 158BB]

CIT v. Dilbagh Rai Arora. (2019) 263 Taxman 30/ 308 CTR 502/ 177 DTR 220 (All.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments–Statement on oath-Assets were not found-Merely on the basis of statement in the course of search no addition can be made. [S. 132(4)]

V. R. Enterprises v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 69 : Income form undisclosed-Bogus purchases-The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases-The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases. [S. 251]

CIT v. Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund. (2019) 263 Taxman 318/ 181 DTR 139/ 310 CTR 491 (Mad.)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dimissed , CIT v. Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund ( 2020) 269 Taxman 5 (SC)

S. 62 : Transfer irrevocable for a specified period–Revocable after three years – Income arising by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets would be chargeable to tax as income of transferors and would be included in their total income- Trust cannot be taxed as an AOP at maximum marginal rate. [S.61(1), 62(2), 164]

Radhika Roy v. DCIT ( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329(Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 56 : Income from other Sources-Purchase of shares at Rs. 4 per shares when the market price was Rs. 140 per share-Failure to explain by credible evidence or any reason or no motive for tax evasion- Difference is held to be taxable as income. [S.56(2)(vii) (c)]