Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


PCIT v. Atul Ltd. (2019)103 taxmann.com 249 / 262 Taxman 11 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Atul Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 10 (SC)

S. 80HHC : Export business–Interest- Business income -Interest charged on delayed payment of sale consideration is assessable as business income.[S. 28(i)]

PCIT v. Nabinagar Power Generating Co. (P.) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 225 / 262 Taxman 9 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Nabinagar Power Generating Co. (P.) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 8 (SC)

S. 28(i) : Business income- Interest income – Interest on amount advanced to contractor assessable as business income and not as income from other sources. [S. 56]

PCIT v. Hero Corporate Service Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com. 199 / 262 Taxman 30 (Delhi ) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Hero Corporate Service Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 29 (SC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Explanation offered cannot be rejected arbitrarily by the AO. [R.8D]

P. Leelavathi v. V. Shankarnarayana Rao ( 2019) 263 Taxman 105/AIR 2019 SC 1938 (SC), www.itatonline.org

Benami Transactions (Prohibition of Right to Recover Property ) Ordinance , 1988.
S.2 : Benami transactions – Right to recover the property – Financial assistance was given is not a determinative factor –Burden of proving the Benami Transaction lie on the person who alleges – Failure of plaintiff to establish intention of father to purchase properties for and behalf of family – Transaction cannot be said to be benami in nature – Appeal of petitioner is dismissed.

Jagdish C. Dhabalia v. ITO ( 2019) 176 DTR 417/ 308 CTR 295/ 262 Taxman 453 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org Mehul Jagdish Dhabala v. ITO( 2019) 176 DTR 417/ 308 CTR 295 ( Bom) (HC) . www.itatonline.org

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- Stamp valuation –Entire consideration was invested in bonds -The assessee cannot avoid the impact of S. 50C by claiming that his S. 54EC investment is large enough to cover the deemed consideration based on stamp duty valuation- Such interpretation renders S. 50C redundant -[ S.45,48. 54EC ]

Meena Bajaj (Smt.) v. ITO (2018) 167 DTR 89 / 192 TTJ 952/ 63 ITR 35(SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation–Limitation provision is applicable to original assessment proceedings and not set aside proceedings – Not barred by limitation. [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

Meena Bajaj (Smt.) v. ITO (2018) 167 DTR 89 / 192 TTJ 952 / 63 ITR 35 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-concealment–Surrender of amount–cash credits–Survey-Surrender was held to be not voluntary-Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 131, 133A]

Sunil Katyal v. ITO (2017) 190 TTJ 889 (2018) 161 DTR 275 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 149 : Reassessment–Time limit for notice-Jurisdiction-Direction of CIT(A) to issue notice after the expiry of period of period of limitation is held to be not valid. [S. 147, 148, 150, 250]

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. ACIT, (2018) 170 DTR 22 / 195 TTJ 166 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Change of opinion-Re-insurance premium- Failure to deduct tax at source–Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 195]

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2018) 170 DTR 85 / 64 ITR 99 / 193 TTJ 769 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Royalty–Survey-Merely because tax was deducted at source on such income it could not be said that there was no escapement of income-Wrong mentioning of provision of law relating to other issues in the reasons recorded would not vitiate reassessment proceedings-Reassessment is held to be valid -DATA- India -South Korea. [S. 133A, 148, Art. 5(2)]