Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 196 TTJ 1 (Mum) ( Trib)

S.92C:Transfer Pricing—ALP—Separate segment accounts— rejection of segment on ground that ‘weight’ was an appropriate allocation key deserves to be rejected and adjustment so made TPO was to be deleted.

Arun Malhotra. v. AO ( 2018) 196 TTJ 719 /(2019) 173 DTR 276 (Delhi)(Trib)

S.80HHC:Export business- Audit report was filed in the name of proprietorship concern – Disallowance of claim is held to be not valid . [ S.158BC ]

Arun Malhotra. v. AO ( 2018) 196 TTJ 719 (2019) 173 DTR 276 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Income from undisclosed sources –Export sales – Export was made by assessee in his proprietorship concern and there was no justification for making an addition as undisclosed export proceeds –Statement of third party – Addition is held to be not justified without giving an opportunity of cross examination. [ S.158BC ]

PCIT v. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd ( 2019) 413 ITR 438 /176 DTR 441/ 308 CTR 193/ 265 Taxman 78 (SC),www.itatonline.org

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law and dismissing it is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure –High Court is directed to hear the appeal following the mandatory procedure. [ S.260A(2) ( C ), 260A(3) ]

Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CBDT ( 2019)416 ITR 21/ 263 Taxman 551 / 177 DTR 284/ 308 CTR 464 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org/Ace Legal v .UOI ( 2019) 416 ITR 21/ 308 CTR 464/ 177 DTR 284 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Guidelines for disposal of appeals – Incentive to CIT(A) –Target of disposal – Enhancement and penalty – Impermissible and invalid- Portion of Central Action Plan prepared by CBDT which gives higher weightage for disposal of appeals by quality orders i.e where order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) is in favour of revenue was to be set aside.[ S.119 , 250 (6A]

Rupa Shyamsundar Dhumatkar v. ACIT ( 2020) 420 ITR 256/ 275 Taxman 453 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice to dead person- Notice to legal heir of deceased Assessment order is held to be invalid .[S.147 , Art .226]

PCIT v. Mohommad Haji Adam (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 69C :Unexplained expenditure -Bogus purchases –Trader in fabrics – -Entire purchases cannot be added without disturbing the sales – Addition is to be restricted to the extent of G.P rate .[ S.145 ]

DIT (IT) v. Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd ( 2019)414 ITR 1// 264 Taxman 108/ 177 DTR 126/308 CTR 314 (FB))(Uttarkhand)(HC), www.itatonline.org.Smith International Inc. v .Add.DIT (IT) ( 2019) 414 ITR 1/ 264 Taxman 108/ 177 DTR 126 / 308 CTR 314 (FB))(Uttarkhand)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 44BB : Mineral oils – Presumptive tax-Gross receipts on account of- Reimbursement of custom duty, service tax paid earlier would not form part of the aggregate amount and not includible in gross receipts . [ S.2(24) , 5, 9 ,43B]

CIT v. P. C. Naidu (2019) 412 ITR 378 (Karn)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Monetary limit – The matter neither had any cascading tax effect nor did it involve any issues of common principles in a group of matters or a large number of matters-.The withdrawal of the appeal could be permitted in accordance with the CBDT Circular dated July 11, 2018 [ S.119 ]

CIT v. Yes Bank Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 459 / 307 CTR 593/ 175 DTR 409 / 262 Taxman 446 (SC) Editorial: Decision in CIT v. Yes Bank Ltd ( ITA No. 599 of 2015 dt 1-8 -2017 ( Bom) (HC) is set aside .

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Revision — Amortisation of preliminary expenses — Bank — Expenses in relation to initial public offer —Revision was quashed by appellate Tribunal and up held by High Court – Matter remanded to High Court to frame question of law and decide the matter .[ S. 35D, 263 ]