1. Suminter India Organics Private Limited v. DCIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 591 (Mum) (Trib.)

By virtue of section 3(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TLA), time permitted for filing Form 10-IC for availing concessional scheme of taxation under section 115BAA of the Act, must be treated as March 31, 2021, even when time permitted for filing of income tax return under section 139(1) of the Act, in light of third proviso to section 3(1) of TLA and read with subsequent notification, was only up to February 15, 2021.

2. Bank of India v. ACIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 41 (Mum) (Trib.)

Where assessee requested personal hearing through Video Conferencing prior to December 28, 2021, same was to be granted invariably as per rule 12 of National Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 which was introduced on December 28, 2021 with retrospective effect.

3. Shapoorji Pallonji Bumi Armada Private Limited v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 572 (Mum) (Trib.)

Rule 13 does not permit a rectification application being entertained from a person other than assessee, Assessing Officer or DRP itself and, thus, miscellaneous application filed by TPO before DRP for rectifying various mistakes in order of DRP would not be maintainable

4. Shinhan Bank v. DDIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 563 (Mum)(Trib.)

It is not ‘impermissible discrimination’ if higher tax rates are charged to Korean Co which has not made ‘prescribed arrangements’ under section 2(22A) of the Act. Interest paid by PE to Head Office is deductible in computing profit of the PE, but does not constitute taxable income of Head Office.

5. DCIT v. Marubeni Corporation [2022] 139 taxmann.com 458 (Mum) (Trib.)

Where assessee, a Japan based company, received interest income on loans provided to Indian parties, since interest income was not directly or indirectly attributable to its PE, mere existence of assessee’s PE in India could not be reason enough to invoke taxability of interest income under article 7 and, thus, interest income was to be taxed at rate of 10 per cent as per article 11(2) of DTAA.

6. ITO v. Rajeev Suresh Ghai [2021] 132 taxmann.com 234 (Mum)(Trib.)

Where assessee a non-resident Indian settled in and a tax resident of UAE paid some unaccounted monies to a builder which were brought to tax under section 69 of the Act and incomes representing unexplained investments were not proved to be earned in India, only investment was made in India, since assessee had been tax resident of UAE all along with no economic activities in India, unexplained investments by assessee which were inherently in nature of application of income rather than earning of income, could not have been taxed under section 69 of the Act as these fall under article 22 of Indo-UAE DTAA which makes such income taxable in country of residence (UAE) unless these investments are proved to be made out of income generated in India

7. Cargo Service Centre India Private Limited v. DCIT ITA No. 3612/Mum/2019 dated November 02, 2021 (Mum)(Trib)

Where, the Assessing Officer allowed the rectification application of the assessee claiming losses to be carried forward. The PCIT held that the AO had not examined this claim in sufficient detail, the loss cannot be allowed to be carried forward. The Tribunal held that the quantification of loss, which is well beyond the limited scope of “mistake apparent on record” under section 154 of the Act of the Act could not have been disturbed in the proceedings under section 154 of the Act of the Act, and what cannot be done under section 154 of the Act of the Act, cannot be done under section 263 read with section 154 of the Act either. The impugned revision order is vitiated in law.

8. Board of Cricket Control of India v. PCIT [2021] 132 taxmann.com 132 (Mum) (Trib.)

Where all funds including additional funds generated from Indian Premier League tournament (IPL), were employed by assessee-trust, BCCI, for promoting cricket, merely because operational model of IPL was more entertaining, more economically viable, provided greater economic opportunities to all those associated with that tournament which resulted in more sponsorship and mobilized greater financial resources for popularising cricket, activities of assessee could not be said to be of commercial nature

9. Rashesh Bhansali v. ACIT [2021] 132 taxmann.com 20 (Mum)(Trib.)

Relevant point of time for taxation, under Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act 2015 (BMA), of an undisclosed foreign asset is point of time when such an asset comes to notice of Government, it is immaterial as to whether it existed at point of time of taxation, or, for that purpose, even at point of time when provisions of BMA came into existence

10. DCIT v. Leena Power Tech Engineers Private Limited [2021] 130 taxmann.com 341 (Mum)(Trib.)

Where assessment was reopened in case of assessee on basis of certain information flowing in from investigation wing which indicated that assessee had received monies, in form of share application money, and, assessee failed to justify huge share premium received by it and material on record did not point towards impugned transaction being a regular transaction in normal course of business, impugned additions made by Assessing Officer were justified

11. ACIT v. Leena Gandhi Tiwari [2022] 136 taxmann.com 409 (Mum)(Trib.)

Where assessment was reopened in case of assessee on basis of certain information flowing in from investigation wing which indicated that assessee had received monies, in form of share application money, and, assessee failed to justify huge share premium received by it and material on record did not point towards impugned transaction being a regular transaction in normal course of business, impugned additions made by Assessing Officer were justified

12. Renu Tharani v. ITO [2020] 117 taxmann.com 804 (Mum) (Trib.)

Where assessee was beneficial owner of deposits in foreign bank accounts and declined to sign consent waiver so as to enable Income-tax Department to obtain all necessary details from said account, additions in respect of assessee’s foreign bank account was justified

13. DCIT v. Surbhit Impex [2021] 130 taxmann.com 315 (Mum)(Trib.)

It’s a pity that sometimes the departmental appeals are filed without carefully looking at undisputed foundational facts in a routine manner. In the present case, even though the Assessing Officer is in appeal before us, the foundational facts are not even in disputes and these foundational facts indicate that there was no remission or cessation of liability in the relevant previous year. Yet, the Assessing Officer is in appeal before us. That does not make any sense. We only hope that the Income-tax Authorities are more careful in taking a call on which decisions needs to be pursued in further appeals.

14. Instrumentarium Corporation Ltd. v. ADIT [2016] 71 taxmann.com 193 (Kol) (Trib.) (SB)

Commercial expediency of a loan to subsidiary is wholly irrelevant in ascertaining arm’s length interest on such a loan; there is no bar on anyone advancing an interest free loans to anyone but when such transactions are covered by international transactions between AEs, section 92C of the Act mandates that income from such transactions are to be computed on basis of arm’s length price

15. ACIT v. People’s Co.Op. Credit Society Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 53 (Ahd) Trib.) (SB)

The benefit of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot denied to co-operative credit societies, in view of their functions of providing credit facilities to members, and same is not hit by provisions of section 80P(4) of the Act.

16. IACR v. Saurashtra Trust [2007] 106 ITD 1 (Mum) (Trib) (SB)

Post amendment of section 2(15) of the Act, being pari materia with section 4(3)(i) of 1922 Act and material facts being identical, assessee would be eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act in relevant assessment year. Since disability under section 11(4A) of the Act is confined to exemption of business income, disability clause would not affect incomes, which may be taxable under a head of income other than ‘Profits and gains from business or profession’ and, therefore, assessee would be entitled to exemption in respect of other incomes, such as ‘income from house property’, ‘capital gains’, and ‘income from other sources’

17. Claris Life Sciences Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 56 (Ahd) (Trib.) (SB)

Where an assessee does not pay self-assessment tax under section 140A of the Actat time of filing original return of income, he is liable to pay penalty under section 221(1) of the Act even though he subsequently revises his return of income and pays self-assessment tax at time of filing said revised return of income.

18. Tata Communications Ltd. v. JCIT [2009] 121 ITD 384 (Mum) (Trib) (SB)

As regards assessee’s claim for relief under section 80-IA, in view of fact that legal question relating to entitlement of assessee to deduction under section 80-IA of the Act had already been admitted by High Court, it was not right for assessee to agitate same or part of question before Tribunal.

19. ACIT v. DHL Operations BV [2007] 13 SOT 581 (Mum)( Trib) (SB)

Once Special Bench comes to be in seisin of entire appeals, it is for bench to decide whether or not to admit additional grounds of appeals. The powers of Tribunal are not confined to deal with issues arising out of orders of lower authorities, provided issue so raised is bona fide and same could not have been raised earlier for good reasons. There is only one limitation on admission of additional ground that no new facts are required to be investigated upon such admission of additional ground

20. DCIT v. Syncome Formulations (I) Ltd [2007] 106 ITD 193 (Mum)(Trib) (SB)

Approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bhari Information Technology Systems (P.) Ltd. [2012] 17 taxmann.com 62 (SC)

The deduction under section 80HHC of the Act in a case of MAT assessment is to be worked out on basis of adjusted book profit under section 115JA of the Act and not on basis of profit computed under regular provisions of law applicable to computation of profit and gains of business or profession.

21. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 111 ITD 190 (Mum)(Trib) (SB)

Where the Assessee treated these earth stations as new undertakings and claimed deduction under section 80-IA of the Act in respect of profits derived from these stations and since assessee had commissioned earth stations for bringing improvement in existing system and for upgrading its services through value addition by adopting contemporary and appropriate technology, it could not be construed as setting up of a new undertaking for purpose of section 80-IA of the Act. Further since assessee was not providing telecommunication services directly to end customer but was providing services of international communication to other providers of basic telecommunication services, assessee could not be considered as provider of basic telecommunication services as stated in section 80-IA(4C) of the Act. Therefore telecommunication earth station, commissioned by assessee in relevant previous year, would not be entitled to be treated as eligible undertaking for purposes of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act.

22. Brahma Associates v. JCIT [2009] 119 ITD 255 (Pune) (Trib) (SB)

Affirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Brahma Associates (2011) 333 ITR 289 (Bom)(HC), and Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Veena Developers (2015) 277 CTR 197/119 DTR 237/66 taxmann.com 353 (SC)

Where housing project has both commercial and residential units, proportionate deduction, to extent of compliance of provisions under section 80-IB(10) of the Act, is allowable

23. Sumit Bhattacharya v. ACIT [2008] 112 ITD 1 (Mum) (Trib) (SB)

Since assessee had no other connection with US Company (Parent) than connection as an organization connected with company in India with which he had entered into an employment contract, anything that assessee received from US Company could not be anything but reward of his employment. Therefore, amount in question received by assessee on redemption of share appreciation rights was taxable under head ‘Income from salaries’.

24. Darwabshaw B Cursetjee Sons Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 23 taxmann.com 149 (Kol.) (Trib) (TM)

Where assessee was aware of prescription of section 35DDA of the Act as evident from fact that in immediately preceding assessment years it claimed only one fifth of expenses on VRS of employees as deduction, claiming deduction for full amount, ignoring clear mandate of said provision in subsequent years would make assessee liable for penalty

25. J.B. Electronics v. JCIT [2010] 40 SOT 176 (Pune) (Trib) (TM)

Since the value of assets as on date of transfer was not known, price of unit as a whole, on a going concern basis, need not be necessarily restricted to sum total of value of its individual assets. In said circumstances, impugned transaction could not be regarded as a case of itemized sale and it was clearly a case of slump sale of business which is outside ambit of taxable income under section 50 of the Act.

Posted on: November 10th, 2022