Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


PCIT v. M.P. Biscuits (P.) Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 378 (All.)(HC)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services–Examinations through various colleges–reimbursement of expenses–Not liable to deduct tax at source.

Mukesh Kumar Prabhatbhai Desai v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 343 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 188A : Firm – Joint and several liability of partners – Stay- Commissioner (Appeals) granted stay by depositing 20 per cent of demand by installments- AO invoked S.188A and issued notice to him to deposit tax – Proceedings against partner was stayed. [S. 226]

Gopal Kesarwani v. DGI (Inv.) (2019) 260Taxman 391 (All.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition–Cash deposited in Bank–Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016 (PMGKY)-[S.131, 132, Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016, S.199I, 199J]

Brahm Datt v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 380/ 173 DTR 1/ 306 CTR 114 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Non-resident-Limitation- Offshore trust–Amendment to S. 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired before amendment became effective – Notice issued in 2015 for the assessment year 1998-99 was quashed. [S. 148, 149]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 417 /173 DTR 34 / 306 CTR 12/( 2020) 421 ITR 193 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(1D) : Assessment–Notice u/s 143(2) is issued for, processing of return -Processing the return for issue of refund is not required -Writ to process the return and issue of refund is dismissed. [S. 143(1),143(2), 143(3), 241 , 241A ]

CIT v. Mata Padmawati Shyamdaya Charitable Trust (2019) 260 Taxman 266 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation – Approval under section 80G(5)(vi) could not be denied merely because donations made by assessee-trust were of insignificant amount. [S. 80G(5)(vi)]

Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 326/ 178 DTR 44/ 309 CTR 92/(2020) 423 ITR 489 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. ITO ( 2011) 128 ITD 74 (Bang ) (Trib) is affirmed.

S. 68 : Cash credits -Cash deposited in bank- creditors did not respond – Cross examination was not requested – Addition is held to be justified.

PCIT v. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) 260 Taxman 317 / 177 DTR 158/ 308 CTR 662(Karn.)(HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Exemption is available though the construction of new property was not completed with in period of three years [ S.45 ]

S.K. Ravikumar v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 288/ 413 ITR 456/ 180 DTR 20/ 310 CTR 212 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 45 (4) : Capital gains – Firm -Retirement of partners-On contribution the individual property to firm, it is the property of the firm – Tribunal is justified in assessing the capital gains in the assessment of the firm.[ S.45 ]

Sandeep Marwah v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 231 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business promotion-Failure to produce supporting evidence–Disallowance of 50% of expenses are held to be justified.