Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Cenduit (India) Services (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 94 ITR 377 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Turnover-When the AO had applied lower turnover filter of Rs. 1 crore and rejected companies with turnover less than Rs. 1 crore from list of comparable companies, he ought to have excluded companies with high turnover from list of comparable companies, i.e., companies having turnover of Rs. 200 crores and above as well. [S.92CA]

Neogenetics Foods P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 94 ITR 22 (SN) / (2023) 221 TTJ 1029(Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92BA : Transfer pricing-Specified domestic transactions-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer after provision omitted-Not valid-Assessing Officer to examine claim of expenditure in terms of Section 40A(2)-Trade credits-Matter remanded. [S. 40A(2), 68]

Rajat Dhara v. Dy.CIT(IT) (2022) 94 ITR 72 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Stay less than 182 days-Salary from foreign employer-Option to choose either DTAA or provisions of Act whichever beneficial-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 5, Art. 16(1)]

Indbank Merchant Banking Services Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 94 ITR 4 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 80M : Inter corporate dividends-Fifty Per Cent. of average cost of borrowing considered as proportionate to earning of income from dividend out of borrowed funds-Proportionate interest expenditure alone to be disallowed-No disallowance of management expenses.

ACIT v. West Wing Infra Projects (2022) 94 ITR 58 (SN) (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-One unit in project admeasuring more than 1,500 Sq. Ft.-Entitled to proportionate deduction.

Dy. CIT v. BPL Ltd. (2022) 94 ITR 66 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 74 : Losses-Capital gains-Set off of brought forward long term capital loss against share premium account in balance sheet pursuant to Corporate debt restructuring-When there was no change in shareholding will not affect the claim of such set off under the Act. [S. 79]

Sapankumar U. Jain v. ITO (2022) 94 ITR 216 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Additions cannot be made when the Assessee has discharged his onus of providing all the genuine details within his ambit to prove the genuineness of a transaction. [S. 133(6)]

ACIT v. Jotindra Steel & Tubes Ltd. (2022) 94 ITR 359 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Search of third party-Noting extracted from computer file-Addition cannot be made on presumptions.

Fathimuthu Amma Mills Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 94 ITR 6 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Search and seizure-Estimate of unaccounted sales-Merely on the basis of statement of clerk and Assistant General manager without corroborative documentary evidence, addition cannot be made. [S. 69A, 132]

Prakash Chand Kothari v. Dy.CIT (2022) 94 ITR 49 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Search and seizure-Income of any other person-No satisfaction recorded-Data found in pen drive-Neither furnished the copy of statement nor an opportunity of cross examination-Addition on account of alleged cash loan was deleted. [S. 131, 132(4), 153C]