Month: May 2020

Archive for May, 2020


Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay v. CIT(2020) 185 DTR 89/ 203 TTJ 26 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Non-resident–Foreign assignment allowance–Revision is held to be bad in law-AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the view permissible in law. [S. 5(2), 9(ii)]

ACIT v. Par Excellence Leasing & Financial Services (P) Ltd. (2020) 186 DTR 129 / 203 TTJ 743 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Procedure–Additional evidence-Remand–Evidence collected during appellate proceedings–Opportunity was not given to the AO-Matter set aside to the file of AO. [S. 246A, R. 46A]

Krish Homes (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 186 DTR 177 / 78 ITR 101 / 203 TTJ 909 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Within four years-Change of opinion-Capital gains on sale of agricultural land-No failure to disclose material facts-Approval granted was without application of mind – Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 2(IA), 10(1), 115JB, 148, 151]

Eagle Burgmann India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185DTR 401 / 203 TTJ 477 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-Failure to deduct tax at source–Merely on the doubt about applicability of tax deducted at source, reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 40(a)(ia), 148]

Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2020) 185 DTR 121 / 203 TTJ 367 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 124 : Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Jurisdiction of AO cannot be called in question by assessee after expiry of one month from date of which he was served with notice u/s. 142(1) or after completion of assessment, which was to be earlier. [S. 142(1)]

Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer–Additional grounds-Jurisdiction-Joint Commissioner–Joint Commissioner of Income-tax-Addl. CIT can act TPO. [S. 2(28C), 92CA(7), 116(cc), 116cca)]

Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–No transfer pricing adjustment can be made on transactions with the non-AEs– Matter remanded.

Dy. CIT v. JSW Energy Ltd. (2020) 180 DTR 598 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–LIBOR instead of LIBOR + credit spread on account of the risk profile of the borrower.

Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 186 DTR 19 / 203 TTJ 568 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Loan to AE-Interest should be charged at LIBOR+200 bps.

Yokogawa IA Technologies India P. Ltd v.Dy.CIT(2020) 180 ITD 621 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Comparable-Directed the TPO to compute margins by taking foreign exchange fluctuations gains/loss as part of operating income both in the case of the assessee and comparable companies.