Month: February 2020

Archive for February, 2020


PCIT v. Wadhawan Designs ( 2019) 184 DTR 299 / (2020) 313 CTR 173 (Delhi ) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits –Bogus Purchases – Name of supplier could not be traced – No justification for applying GP rate – Addition as unexplained cash credit is up held [ S.37(1) ,69C 145 ]

National Company v. ACIT ( 2019) 178 DTR 305 (Mad) (HC)

S.45(4) : Capital gains – Distribution of capital asset -Retirement- On retirement the amount received does not represent consideration in lieu of relinquishment of his interest in the partnership asset – Addition cannot be made in the assessment of the firm [ S.45 ]

CIT v. Anand, S. M. (2019) 311 CTR 795 (Karn )(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Second proviso to S. 40(a)(ia) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012 is clarificatory and retrospective in nature – No disallowance can be made where the recipient of the amount has already discharged his tax liability therein .[ S. 40(a) ,139(1) ]

CIT ( E ) v. Shiv Kumar Sumitra Devi Smarak Shikshan Sansthan ( 2019) 182 DTR 7 ( All) (HC)

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Assessment was not pending before AO but before the Tribunal -Granting of registration for the AY. 2011-12 is held to be not valid. [ S. 11, 12 ]

Xstrata Coal Marketing AG v. Dalmia Bharat (Cement) Ltd. (2019) 311 CTR 597/183 DTR 315 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(vii):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services – Monies received towards arbitration costs and legal costs – Amount payable as per decree – Not liable to deduct tax at source -DTAA-India – Switzerland [S.190 , Art .22 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S.48 ]

PCIT v. K. P. R. Developers Ltd. (2019) 311 CTR 832/ 183 DTR 406 / 274 Taxman 449(Mad.)(HC)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land- Capital gains- Agricultural lands and beyond 8 k.m., from the notified cities – Revenue records showing as agricultural lands- Department to prove that the entries in the revenue records and the patta were false or bogus- Entitle to exemption .[ S.45 ]

Experion Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2020 ) 422 ITR 355/ 115 taxmann.com 338 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Bogus share capital- Parent company – Indian subsidiaries- Information from investigation wing – Credit worthiness of the investing company- Reassessment notice is held to be valid .[ S.68 , 148 ]

Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company v. DCIT( 2020) 423 ITR 525/ 114 taxmann.com 492/ 273 Taxman 68/187 DTR 217/ 313 CTR 473 (Mad)(HC), www.itatonline.org . Editorial : Order set aside Dy. CIT v. Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. P. Ltd. (2021)437 ITR 597 / 323 CTR 207(Mad) (HC) Dy. CIT v. Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Co. P. Ltd. (2021)437 ITR 597 (Mad) (HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment – E-Assessment – Post demonetization-The AO should at least call for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount collected by the assessee was unusual- The AO could have come to a definite conclusion on facts after fully understanding the nature of business of the assessee-Order of AO is set aside and directed the AO is directed to dispose the matter with in sixty days of receipt of the order . [S.69A ,115BBE.]

Celltick Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2019 ) 109 taxmann.com 334 (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – (i) If the “arms length‟ principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India (ii) If the subsidiary has subsequently entered into an “APA‟ with the CBDT & the FAR analysis and overall functions remain unchanged, the “APA‟ would have a bearing on the ALP of the earlier years.

Carestream Health Inc v. DCIT (Mim)(Trib), www.itatonilne.org

S. 45: Capital gains- Long term capital loss – A reduction of capital results in an “extinguishment of rights” in the shares and constitutes a “transfer‟- The fact that the percentage of shareholding remains unchanged even after the reduction is irrelevant. The loss arising from the cancellation of shares is entitled to indexation and is allowable as a long-term capital loss.[ S. 2(22)(d),2(47),10(34) ,48,49(2),115A, 1150 ]