Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal( 2019) 417 ITR 325/ 266 Taxman 171 / 310 CTR 8/ 180 DTR 313 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal ( 2019) 108 taxmann.com 182 (MP )(HC ) is affirmed .

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice –Failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee has participated in the proceedings -Deeming fiction does not operate to save complete absence of notice [ S.292BB ]

PCIT v. S. G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd( 2019)266 Taxman 451/ 108 taxmann.com 213 / 310 CTR 1/ 181 DTR 17 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: Arising from the order PCIT v. S. G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd ( 2019) 102 taxmann.com 306 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 92CA: Reference to transfer pricing officer – CBDT’s Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003 makes it mandatory for the AO to make a reference to the TPO- The failure to make reference to the TPO renders the Transfer Pricing Adjustments made therein are bad in law though the assessment order is good- The matter should be restored to the file of the AO so that appropriate reference could be made to the TPO.[ S. 92C, 119 ]

Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT( 2019 ) 74 ITR 373 /( 2020) 203 TTJ 59 (Bang)(Trib),/ Carmel Asia Holdings (P) Ltd v ACIT 2019) 74 ITR 373/ (2020) 203 TTJ 59 (Bang.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits –Share capital premium- The test of human probabilities cannot be applied to business transactions- The AO cannot reach this conclusion without further investigation and bringing material on record -Reopening is held to be bad in law [ S.147, 148 ]. .

Pankil Garg v. PCIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 305 (Chand)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 56 : Income from other sources –HUF –Relative – Amounts received by a member from the ‘HUF’ cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to taxation- Revision is held to be not valid [ S.56(2) (vii), 263 ].

Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT ( 2019) 201 TTJ 831/( 2020) 181 ITD 185 /188 DTR 108 (Kol)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- stamp valuation- Though the 3rd Proviso to S. 50C, which provides a safe harbour of 5%, applies w.e.f. 01.04.2019, it must be interpreted to apply since the insertion of s. 50C (01.04.2003) because it is curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assessees. [ S. 43CA, 45 ]

Sanat Kumar v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 : Capital gains – Penny stocks- Bogus capital gains- 282 times gain in 12 months- The meticulous paper work of routing the transaction through banking channel is futile because the results are altogether beyond human probabilities. [ S.10(38) ]

Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT ( 2019) 201 TTJ 831 /( 2020) 181 ITD 185/ 188 DTR 108(Kol)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45 :Capital gains- -Penny stocks- Long term capital gains from penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order and no fault is found by the AO- Addition is deleted. [ S.38, 111A ]

Harish Narinder Salve v. ACIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 121/ 74 TR 21 (SN)/178 ITD 800 Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 37(1): Business expenditure- Capital or revenue – Expenditure on scholarship – Held to be revenue expenditure.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 / 164 DTR 1 /254 Taxman 325 (SC) • PCIT v. State Bank of Patiala (2018) 402 ITR 640 / 164 DTR 1 / 254 Taxman 325(SC)

S.14A:Digest – Expenditure incurred for earning exempt income – Guide . R.8D

Snowtex Investment Ltd v. PCIT (SC)( 2019) 414 ITR 227/265 Taxman 3 / 308 CTR 665 / 178 DTR 89 (SC),www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statutes –Retrospectivity-Power of Courts – Intention of legislature to be seen . [ S.43(5) , 73 ]