Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


PCIT v. BLB Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (Cal.)(HC), www.itatonlne.org

S. 73 : Losses in speculation business-Commodity trading–Off market transaction-The AO cannot treat losses from off market commodity transactions as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law if the transactions through the broker are duly recorded in the books of the assessee-The fact that the broker was expelled from the commodity exchange cannot be the criteria to hold the transaction as bogus.

Aamby Valley Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 102 taxmann.com 38/ 198 TTJ 662 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 47(vii) : Capital gains-Business income-Income from other sources -Transfer by a share holder in a scheme of amalgamation- Increse in general reserve on transaction related to the composite Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation-An anti-abuse provisions which applies only to cases of bogus capital building and money laundering- It does not apply to an amalgamation where shares are allotted at alleged undervaluation-.Increase in general reserves due to recording of assets of amalgamating company at FMV not give rise to any real income to the assessee-It is capital in nature- Amendment to s. 47(vii) by FA 2012 w.e.f 1-4 -2003 is clarificatory and retrospective- Addition is held to be not valid. [S. 28(iv); 56(2)(viia)]

Mukta Gupta v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Mohan Lal Agarwal (HUF) v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains-Penny Stocks-Capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on the basis that the price of the shares has risen manifold and the reason for astronomical rise is not related to any fundamentals of market-If the transactions are duly proved by trading from stock exchange and the documentation is proper, the gains cannot be assessed as unexplained credit or as unexplained money. [S. 10 (38), 68, 69]

PCIT v. Sushil Gupta Legal Representative of Late Mahvir Prasad Gupta (2019) 411 ITR 678/262 Taxman 41 / 102 taxmann.com 409 / 175 DTR 385 / 307 CTR 681 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org/Editorial: Notice issued in SLP filed by assessee, Sushil Gupta v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 638 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law- Custom redemption fine is held to be not allowable as deduction, in view of explanation I to S.37(1) of the Act. [S. 69C]

PCIT v. Aegis Ltd. (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Investment in sister concern- Sufficient interest free loans–Deletion of addition is held to be justified.

Shree Balaji Ventures v. ITO (Trib)(Pune), www.itatonline.org

S. 23 : Income from house property–Annual letting value–Stock in trade-The annual letting value (ALV) of unsold units of properties lying as stock in trade is not assessable as income under the head income from house property. [S. 5, 22, 23(4)]

Varian Medical Systems International India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 174 ITD 721/ 199 TTJ 118 / 177 DTR 162(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Transfer pricing officer-Transfer pricing risk parameter, fell under para 3.2 of circular dated 10-3-2016 which required reference to TPO by Assessing Officer mandatorily – Revision is held to be justified. [S. 92CA]

ACIT v. RPD Earth Movers (P.) Ltd. (2019) 174 ITD 717 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment–Search-Assessment was completed on the basis of return filed-No incriminating material being found during subsequent search, there could not be any assessment under section 153A/153C. [S. 143(3), 153C]

Milestone Gears (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 702 / 176 DTR 59/ 198 TTJ 870 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Profit on each undertaking has to be treated separately-Profits and losses of all eligible undertakings are not to be netted for purpose of calculating deduction – Each undertaking are to be taken on a stand-alone basis -Where the assessee availed deduction for a period of 5 years at rate of 100 per cent on substantial expansion , deduction for remaining 5 assessment years will be at rate of 30 per cent and not at rate of 100 per cent. [S. 80IC (2), 80IC(5), 80IC(7)]

Pravesh Kejriwal v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 662 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Business of manufacturing and trading of tea machineries-PAN cards were furnished -Payments were made by account payee cheques -TDS was deducted – Parties were produced for examination -Addition cannot be made as unexplained expenditure.