Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


C.V. Antony. v. Chairman, CBDT (2019) 265 Taxman 178 (Ker.) (HC),Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed , C.V. Antony v. Chairman, CBDT (2020) 274 Taxman 379 ( SC)

S. 120 : Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities-Appointment of ITO-Pass percentage-Modification from 26-05 2008–No retrospective effect. [Departmental Examination Rules for ITOs 1998 R. VI]

Control Risks India (P.) Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2019) 107 taxmann.com 82 / 264 Taxman 292 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, DCIT v. Control Risks India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 291 (SC)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer–It is incumbent upon Assessing Officer to pass a draft assessment order under S. 144C of the Act. [S. 92CA(3), 144C]

PCIT v. Bunge India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 207 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Pro-rata adjustment considering only associated enterprises-Matter remanded-No question of law. [S. 260A]

CIT v. SI Group-India Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 204/ ( 2020) 186 DTR 184 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Know-how–Royalty-TPO is not justified in making the addition without applying any specified method.

CIT v. Indo Continental Hotels and Resorts Ltd. (2019) 107 taxmann.com 161 /264 Taxman 294 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Indo Continental Hotels and Resorts Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 293 (SC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Residential plus commercial-Commercial user is permitted by local authority was within local limits-Entitle to exemption.

Central U.P. Gas Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 370 / 264 Taxman 283 (All.)(HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue CIT v. Central U.P. Gas Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 282 (SC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Manufacture-Activity of compression of natural gas into CNG amounted to manufacture-Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(29BA)]

Sunil Balasubramaniam Shankar v. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 7 (Mag.) (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure–Bogus purchases-Alleged use of five credit cards by friends–In response to summons the friends refused use of cards–Addition is held to be justified. [S. 131]

PCIT v. Synbiotics Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 34 (Mag.) (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure–Bogus purchases-Tribunal is justified in restricting addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 25 per cent.

PCIT v. Dharmaja Infrastructure (2019) 265 Taxman 125 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account–Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of stamp valuation adopted by Stamp authority. [S. 45, 50C]

H. Abuthahir v. DCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 9 (Mag.) (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money–Purchase and sale of gold on behalf of other parties-Identity of purchasers was not established– Addition on estimate basis of 3.5% of turnover is held to be justified as against 1% disclosed by the appellant.