Month: August 2019

Archive for August, 2019


PCIT v. Green Fire Exports (2019)106 taxmann.com 32 / 263 Taxman 676 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Green Fire Exports (2019) 263 Taxman 675 (SC)

S. 10AA : Special economic zones-Reconstruction-sole proprietorship was not been shifted to firm -Only Capital received from sole proprietorship-Not a reconstruction – Entitle to exemption. [S.10AA)4)(iii)]

Jaipur National University v. Jt. CIT (2019) 175 DTR 337/198 TTJ 457 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation–Initiation of penalty starts from issue of show cause notice and not from date of order u/s 201(1)- Penalty order was within time and not barred by limitation. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 271C]

Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel v. Jt. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 73 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty-Accepts any loan or deposit–Sum initially advanced as loan by father to son, but later treated as gift transaction cannot be subject to S. 269SS-levy of penalty is not justified .[S. 269S]

Jaipur National University v. Jt. CIT (2019) 175 DTR 337 (Japur.) (Trib.)

S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source-It is necessary to establish that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee- Penalty levied was deleted. [S. 273B]

Gaurav Joshi v. ITO(2019) 174 DTR 353 / 197 TTJ 946 (Asr.) (Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years–The assessment framed by AO who had not issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act is void-ab-initio –Notice was issued by the AO who had no jurisdiction- Reassessment is held to be bad in law . [S. 2(7A), 148]

Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 687 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Re-opening Reopening merely on the basis of information received from investigation wing without application of mind is not valid. [S. 148]

Fortune Vincom Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 48 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Order giving effect to revision order– Assessing Officer is bound to follow the directions provided in the order u/s. 263 by the CIT. [S. 263]

Habib Tannery P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 28 (SN.) (Luck.)(Trib.)

S. 133A : Power of survey – Statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act does not hold any evidentiary value without any corroborative evidence-Deletion of addition is held to be justified.

ITO v. Prism Share Trading (P) Ltd. (2019) 174 DTR 257 / 197 TTJ 733 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Gain from off market trading in commodities – Statement of the broker that his company had not made any off market transactions with other clients–AO based on the statement assumed that transactions were not genuine–All details filed and even broker confirmed transactions–AO further denied set off against loss from F & O market–Addition deleted. [S. 115BBE]

Innoviti Payments Solutions P. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 33 (SN.) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-AO can scrutinize the valuation report and determine a fresh valuation either by himself or by calling from independent valuer to conform the assessee but the basis has to be DCF method.