Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Ratanlal Biharilal Atal v. ITO (2018) 173 ITD 569/ ( 2019) 175 DTR 156 / 198 TTJ 1019(Nagpur)(Trib.)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-TDS related to HUF was credited to assessee’s TDS account-HUF had not availed benefit of such TDS certificate- Denial of refund is held to be not justified. [ S. 10(37), 194LA]

Basil Mendes Memorial Educational & Charitable Trust v. ITO (2018) 173 ITD 390 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 164 : Representative assessees-Charge of tax – Beneficiaries unknown -Un registered trust- Trustees filing their return showing taxable income – Trust is to be assessed as an AOP and the income would be taxable at maximum marginal rate .[ S.12A, 164(1), 167B ]

DCIT v. Gurinderjit Singh (2018) 173 ITD 487 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 153 : Assessment–Reassessment–Limitation–Settlement commission admitted the Application on 30-8-1996, admitted tax and interest was not paid and during pendency of proceedings- S. 245HA and 245D were amended providing abatement due to non-payment by 31-7-2007-Constitutional validity of which was challenged and finally case was abated in 2016- Assessment order was passed within 60 days was not time barred. [S. 245C(1), 245HA, 245D]

Sun Tec Business Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 185 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel -Non -speaking order – Order passed by DTP without giving any reasons for rejecting objections raised by assessee- ,Order was set aside and, matter was to be remanded back for disposal afresh.[S. 92C]

Seal For Life India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 229 /( 2019) 197 TTJ 742/ 174 DTR 281(Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Form 26AS-Merely on the basis of information form 26AS submitted by the deductor, addition cannot be made, as the assessee had no control over inputs made by the deductor. [ S. 4]

Ajay Kumar Singhania. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 474 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 71 : Set off of loss-One head against income from another-Assessee has the option to set off business loss against capital gains – It is not mandatory. [S. 71(3), 80]

ACIT v. Overseas Trading and Shipping Co. (P.) Ltd. (2018) 173 ITD 446 (Rajkot)(Trib.)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account –Undisclosed investments- Excess stock-Mismatch in quantity of stock- Reconciliation filed with District Supply Officer was accepted -Addition is held to be not justified.

DCIT v. Hrishikesh D. Pai (2018) 173 ITD 272 /( 2019) 197 TTJ 583(Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account –Capital accounts -Books of account – Firm -Partner -Share in partnership was not included in the books of account- Difference was explained – Addition was held to be not justified.

DCIT v. Pratibha Pankaj Patel. (2018) 173 ITD 593/( 2019) 175 DTR 105/ 307 CTR 233 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Foreign remittances-From a foreign bank, as a result of disbursements from a family trust-Addition is held to be not justified.

Sunil Ramakrishna. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 468 (SMC) (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credit-Gift from father–Failure to bring on record any material evidence to prove creditworthiness and capacity of his father to advance huge amount of cash gift from any known source of income-Addition is held to be justified [S. 56(2)(viic)]