Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


ITO v. G.S. Lekha (Smt.) (2019) 177 ITD 1/ 200 TTJ 785 / 180 DTR 249 (TM) (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 10(37) : Capital gains-Agricultural land-With in specified urban limits–Compulsorily acquiring of land for public purpose- Provision meant for removing hardship–Two years prior to acquisition was used for agricultural purposes-Agricultural Officer had certified land to be agricultural land-AO cannot deny the exemption. [S. 2(14)(iii)(a)(b), 45]

Dy.CIT v. Shri Kumar Sanjeev Ranjana ( 2019) 177 DTR 17 ( Bang) (Trb)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Indian assignment -Resident of USA- Not liable to tax in India – DTAA-India -USA. [Art. 4]

Alkoplus Producers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 177 ITD 150 / 71 ITR 650/181 DTR 329/ 201 TTJ 893 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax–Subsidy-Industrial investment or expansion-Capital receipt-Amendment to S. 2(24) by inserting clause (xviii) by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1-4-2016 is prospective in nature- Not liable to be reduced from cost of assets for purpose of depreciation.[S. 2(24)(viii), 32, 43(1)]

ITO v. G.S. Lekha (Smt.) (2019) 177 ITD 1 / 200 TTJ 785 (TM) (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 2(14) : Capital asset – Tree standing on an agricultural land are transferred along with land as its integral part in one transaction, said land would be regarded as ‘agricultural land’ and not a separate capital asset -Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(14) (iii)(a),10(37), 45]

PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd ( 2019) 416 ITR 613/ 265 Taxman 515/ / 309 CTR 453/180 CTR 185 (SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial : Order in PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd ( Successor of Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd) ( 2017) 397 ITR 681/ ( 2019) 107 Taxmann.com 472 (Delhi) (HC) is affirmed .

S.143(3): Assessment-–Jurisdiction- Amalgamation of companies – Notice issued in the name of amalgamating entity after amalgamation is void-The amalgamating entity ceases to exist- Participation in the proceedings by the assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law. [ S.144C(1),170(2),292BB ]

Royal Rich Development Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT ( 2019) 184 DTR 293 /(2020) 313 CTR 478(Bom)(HC)

S. 68: Cash credits- Bogus share capital- Shell company –Huge premium- Failure to produce the subscribers and based on the statement of the Director that entire invest was bogus- Addition is held to be justified .[ S.132(4) ]

PCIT v. Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 37(1): Business expenditure- Cash credits- Bogus purchases-Despite admission by the assessee that the purchases were mere accommodation entries, the entire expenditure cannot be disallowed. Only the profit embedded in the purchases covered by the bogus bills can be taxed. The GP rate disclosed by the assessee cannot be disturbed in the absence of incriminating material to discard the book results. [ S.68, 69, 143(3) ]

Prashanti Medical Service & Research Foundation v. UOI ( 2019) 416 ITR 485/ 180 DTR 209/ 309 CTR 457 / 265 Taxman 504(SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial : From the judgement in Prashanti Medical Service & Research Foundation v. UOI (2017) 399 ITR 450/ 250 Taxman 515/157 DTR 241 /298 CTR 265 (Guj) (HC)

S.35AC:Expenditue on eligible projects – Schemes –Promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power nor any vested right accrues to an assessee in the matter of grant of any tax concession to him- In a taxing statute, a plea based on equity or/and hardship is not legally sustainable –Withdrawal of exemption is valid . S. 35AC(7) is prospective in nature- Provision is valid in law . [ S.35AC(7) ]

SEL Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 217 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-Undisclosed income – Additional amount declared – Penalty levied at 60% on the amount surrendered is not valid penalty can be levied only at 10% of surrendered income – Additions made in respect of debatable issue levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 132(4), 271AAB(1)(a), 271AAB(c), 274]

Pankil Garg v. PCIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 305 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Income from other sources- Order passed by the AO following the decision of Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous – Amount received by a member of HUF from HUF is not taxable as income from other sources -Amount received is not a gift without consideration because the member has a pre-existing right in the property hence capital receipt – Revision is not valid. [S. 4, 10(2) 56(2)(vii)]