Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Bihar Police Building Construction Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. P CIT (2019) 265 Taxman 373 / (2020) 187 DTR 449/ 313 CTR 806(Patna) (HC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment–Notice–Issue of notice beyond period prescribed in proviso to S.143(2)–Assessment is barred by limitation.

Nittur Vasanth Kumar Mahesh v. ACIT (2019) 265 Taxman 277/ 311 CTR 332/ 183 DTR 150 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment–Notice-Non service of notice with in limitation period–Order is bad in law-Provision of S.292BB cannot be invoked since assessee neither appeared nor co-operated in inquiry during assessment proceedings as the order was passed u/s. 144 of the Act. [S. 144 , 292BB, Art. 226]

EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 265 Taxman 454 / (2020)425 ITR 508 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 115JA : Book profit-Provision for bad and doubtful debts is a provision for unascertained liability, and thus, same could not be excluded while computing book profits-Provision made for payment of purchase tax, payment of purchase tax on cane subsidy and provision for wealth tax, in anticipation of Government Notification, were provisions for unascertained liability, liable to be added back while computing book profits. [S. 36(1)(vii)]

Cognizant (Mauritius) Ltd. v. DCIT(IT) (2019) 265 Taxman 387/ 310 CTR 321/181 DTR 154 (Mad.)(HC)/Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation v Dy .CIT ( 2019) 310 CTR 321/ 181 DTR 154 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer – AO is not bound to pass draft assessment order in tune with arm’s length price fixed by TPO-AO having rejected valuation of shares made by TPO, made addition to assessee’s income in respect of excess price paid for buy-back of shares-Writ was dismissed-liberty is given to the to the assessee raise all the issues before the Dispute Resolution Panel. [S. 2(22) (iv), 46A,56(1), 92CA 94, 115QA, 144C, Companies Act, 1956, S.72A, R.11UA, Art. 226]

PCIT v. ZTE Telecom India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 70 (Mag.) (P& H)( HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Services of application design, software engineering and technology cannot be compared with a company providing software support services.

Indian Additives Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 383 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Transportation cost-Not able to establish that cost of transportation in comparable case was lesser than assessee-Adjustment is held to be valid. [S. 260A]

CIT (LTU) v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 237 (SC) Editorial : Order in CIT (LTU) v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 439/85 taxmann.com 349 (Bom)(HC) is affirmed partly.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Guarantee commission-Comparison can be made between guarantees issued by commercial Banks as against a corporate guarantee issued by a holding company to benefit of its Associated enterprises-Bench mark fixed by TPO at 3 percent is held to be correct. [S. 92CA(3), R.10B]

PCIT v. Kundayam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 52 (Mag) (Ker.)(HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies-Primary Agricultural Credit Society –Interests from loans and advances-Matter remanded [S.80P(2)(a)(i), Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.]

Pioneer Foods & Agro Industries. v. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 53 (Mag)/ 181 DTR 60/ 311 CTR 573 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 80IB(11A) : Undertaking–Business of processing , preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables-Business of manufacturing and exporting honey is eligible to claim deduction.

PCIT v. Bhagwanbhai K. Patel. (2019) 108 taxmann.com 60 / 265 Taxman 233 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. Bhagwanbhai K. Patel. (2019) 265 Taxman 232 (SC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure–Purchase of land jointly with another person-Assessee could be asked to explain only 50% of his share and not source of other person who has invested another 50%.