Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


Hitachi High Technologies Singapore Pte Ltd. (2019) 202 TTJ 273 / ( 2020) 180 ITD 861 / 187 DTR 223 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection–Liaison office–Involved in preparatory and auxiliary activities but also involved in ascertaining customer requirements, price negotiations obtaining of purchase orders etc–Constituted PE in India and profit attribution has to be done-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 92, Art. 5]

Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394 / 180 ITD 832 / 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune)(Trib.) Kruti Lalit Kumar Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394/ 180 ITD 832/ 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune) (Trib.) Pranay Lalit Kumar Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394/ 180 ITD 832 / 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-In balance sheet of ‘K’ Ltd, amount in question was not shown as loan to assessee-addition is deleted.

Doon Valley Foods (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 181 ITD 18 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income-Income from mushroom spawn grown in nursery qualifies as agricultural income-Eligible for exemption-Issue restored to file of AO to determine whether spawn was actually grown by assessee-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 10(1)]

Suresh H. Kerudi v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 44 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271AB : Penalty–in search case-Assessee not person subjected to search-Penalty proceedings against assessee not sustainable. [S. 132(4)]

Dy. CIT v. Himanshu Verma (2019) 76 ITR 698 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007- AO must establish there was undisclosed income-Estimated income not undisclosed income-No specific finding in respect of any specific seized material or undisclosed income detected as a result of search-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 132]

Rajendra Kumar and Co. v. DCIT (2019)75 ITR 73 (Lucknow) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Notice–No specific charge and limb under which penalty proposed–Concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income–Notice void ab intio. [S. 274]

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 75 ITR 48 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Loss of equipment-Forfeiture of security deposit–Revenue or capital expenditure-Debatable issue-Full disclosure during the assessment proceedings–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Pradipta Kumar Das v. ACIT (2019) 75 ITR 85 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Mere claim–Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Levy of penalty is not justified – Delay of 229 days condoned due to health ground. [S. 10(13A), 254(1)]

Punjab Sind Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 180 DTR 203 /199 TTJ 929 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–In the absence of evidence to suggest concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty cannot be levied.

Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 180 DTR 177 / 104 taxmann.com 340 / 199 TTJ 545 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Where income was offered in the return and tax paid thereon, penalty could not be levied. [S. 153A, 271AAA]