Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


OPJ Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 DTR 265 / 305 CTR 413 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate–Deduction of tax deducted at source and depositing with Government by the payee does not decide the final tax liability of the recipient of the income which would be the subject matter of assessment- Petition is dismissed. [S. 143(3)]

Village Antique & Ethinic v. ITO (2018) 171 DTR 408 / (2019) 306 CTR 0073 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Duty Draw Back and other such incentives were not profits derived from eligible business and accordingly exemption u/s.10BA could not be allowed in respect of Duty Draw Back and other export incentives—Matter was remanded back to AO to decide same afresh in accordance with law, however, leaving it open for both parties to raise all contentions before AO—Matter remanded. [S. 10BA, 148]

CIT v. Parrisons Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 369/ 310 CTR 604 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Disallowance of 20% expenditure–Bogus dealers- Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 40A(3), 148]

Dayanidhi Maran v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 161 / 305 CTR 233 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Mere non quoting of reasons formed by AO in notice would not vitiate entire proceedings- communication of all reasons for reopening of assessment at time of issuance of notice was not necessary—When notice was issued within timeline provided by virtue of s. 149(1)(b), challenge raised by assessee on point of limitation was not sustainable—Since assessee was holding high position of Union Minister and since, transaction were believed to be multi folded, which warranted further investigation, issuance of notices on multiple choice could not be faulted—Writ petition was dismissed. [S.148/ 149(1)(b)]

PCIT v. Roshan Lal Sancheti (2018) 172 DTR 313 / (2019) 306 CTR 140 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 132(4) : Search & seizure-Retraction of statement after eight months -Addition on the basis of statement is held to be justified- Appeal of revenue is allowed. [S. 131, 132]

Dilip Tanaji Kashid v. M.L. Karmakar Principal CIT (2018) 169 DTR 319 / 304 CTR 436 (Bom)( HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Transfer of case from Kolhapur to Mumbai – “Centralisation Committee” which took decision for transfer of jurisdiction, is not authority envisaged u/s 127(2)- Absence of dissenting note” from officer of equal rank who has to agree to proposed transfer would not constitute agreement, envisaged u/s 123(2)(a)–Transfer order was quashed. [S. 123(2)(a), 127(2)]

D.Y. Patil Education Society v. (2018) 169 DTR 325 / 304 CTR 441 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases–Co–ordinated investigation- Transfer of case from Kolhapur to Mumbai –Justifying the transfer of case was not furnished – Notice to transfer the case is quashed.

PCIY v. New Silk Route Advisors P. Ltd. (2018) 170 DTR 257 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Comparable—Functionally different activities cannot be taken for determination of Arm’s length price.

PCIT v. PTC Software (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 169 DTR 403 / 305 CTR 187 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Comparable–Functionally indifferent companies cannot be selected as comparables. [S.260A ]

Daman Computers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 170 DTR 103 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings–Contract for manufacturing of product-Manufacturing activity undertaken by that other entity for and on behalf of Assessee was not under its direct supervision and control –Not entitle to deduction.