Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


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

S.271(1) (c) : Penalty concealment – Specific charge -concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income –Issue which was not raised in original proceedings cannot be raised in remand proceedings. [ S.254(2) , 271(1)(a), 274 ]

United Health Group Information Services (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 DTR 246 / 192 TTJ 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Transfer pricing adjustment– Software development–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92C]

Titagarh Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 1010 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-capital work in progress- Short term loss-Assessee has sold plant and machinery along with capital WIP, then order passed by AO cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 143(3)]

Sudarshan Goyal v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 22 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A, levy of late fee is not valid. [S. 200A]

State Bank of India v. ITO (TDS) (2018) 195 TTJ 6 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s. 200A, levy of late fee is not valid- Matter remanded. [S. 200A]

Shivjot Developers & Builders Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 193 TTJ 74 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)b

S. 221 : Collection and recovery–Penalty-Tax in default –Survey- Reasonable cause -Cash was generated on account of sale of property- Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 133A]

Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2018) 165 DTR 88/ 169 ITD 675 / 193 TTJ 404 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation- Order passed by AO raising demand u/s.201(1) is beyond limit provided in sub-section (3) for quarter Nos.1 to 3 then, AO could be directed to delete demand raised for quarter Nos.1 to 3. and sustained demand for quarter No.4–U/s.201(3) no limit was provided for passing order charging interest u/s 201(1A), hence assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) and said order of AO was upheld – Partly allowed.[S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3)]

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 163 DTR 179 / 191 TTJ 294 (Hyd.)(Trib.) b

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Commission or brokerage–Cash discount-Provision is applicable in respect of amounts paid to agents in connection with sale of SIM cards and other services- Mere fact that assessee was only a recipient and had not paid any amount to distributor would not make a difference. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

Smart Cube India (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 164 DTR 201 / 192 TTJ 881 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Claimed deduction u/s. 10B despite fact that STPI, Noida from whom assessee had been taking approval was not competent to accord approval for deduction- Reassessment is held to be justified-AO is bound to allow deduction u/s. 10A which was made in the return filed in pursuance of notice u/s. 148 [ S.10A]

ACIT v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd ( 2018) 193 TTJ 36 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Method of accounting-AIR information-Addition cannot be made solely based on AIR information. [S.4, 145, AS-26]