Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Ciena Communications India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 196 TTJ 425 //( 2019) 176 DTR 262 / 98 taxmann.com 458 (Delhi)( Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident–Providing services of AMC and installation, commissioning services, for equipment supplied by its group entities to customers in India – Not liable to deduct ta at source- DTAA-India –USA [S.195, Art .12 (4)]

KGL Network (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 195 TTJ 265 / (2019) 176 DTR 102 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident–Airfreight-Payments on behalf of its clients as Clearing and Forwarding Agent which were reimbursed-Expenditure was not claimed as deduction- No disallowance can be made. [S.44B, 172]

BT E-Serv (India) P. Ltd v. (2018) 195 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 10AA : Special economic zones-Merely because consideration was received after 6 months from close of FY, deduction could not be denied to assessee on such sum—AO was directed to consider a sum as export turnover – Deduction cannot be allowed on unbilled revenue as it does not qualify the definition of export and export turnover. [S. 10A(3)]

Cameron Australasia Pty. Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2018) 66 ITR 262 / 196 TTJ 39(2019) 175 DTR 386 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty-fee for technical services-Income from offshore sale of products could not be construed to be FTS or royalty liable to tax in India–DTAA-India-Australia.

American Express (India) Pvt. Ltd v.Dy .CIT ( 2017) 83 taxmann.com 345/ (2018) 196 TTJ 283 (Delhi)(Trib)

S.92C: Transfer pricing—Selection of comparables—Functionally different—IT enabled services- TNMM – Software developer could not be functionally comparable with a pure captive service provider – Foreign exchange gain or loss is part of operating expenditure/ income.

Aramex India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 196 TTJ 1 (Mum) ( Trib)

S.92C:Transfer Pricing—ALP—Separate segment accounts— rejection of segment on ground that ‘weight’ was an appropriate allocation key deserves to be rejected and adjustment so made TPO was to be deleted.

Arun Malhotra. v. AO ( 2018) 196 TTJ 719 /(2019) 173 DTR 276 (Delhi)(Trib)

S.80HHC:Export business- Audit report was filed in the name of proprietorship concern – Disallowance of claim is held to be not valid . [ S.158BC ]

Arun Malhotra. v. AO ( 2018) 196 TTJ 719 (2019) 173 DTR 276 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Income from undisclosed sources –Export sales – Export was made by assessee in his proprietorship concern and there was no justification for making an addition as undisclosed export proceeds –Statement of third party – Addition is held to be not justified without giving an opportunity of cross examination. [ S.158BC ]

PCIT v. A. A. Estate Pvt. Ltd ( 2019) 413 ITR 438 /176 DTR 441/ 308 CTR 193/ 265 Taxman 78 (SC),www.itatonline.org

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law and dismissing it is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure –High Court is directed to hear the appeal following the mandatory procedure. [ S.260A(2) ( C ), 260A(3) ]

Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CBDT ( 2019)416 ITR 21/ 263 Taxman 551 / 177 DTR 284/ 308 CTR 464 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org/Ace Legal v .UOI ( 2019) 416 ITR 21/ 308 CTR 464/ 177 DTR 284 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Guidelines for disposal of appeals – Incentive to CIT(A) –Target of disposal – Enhancement and penalty – Impermissible and invalid- Portion of Central Action Plan prepared by CBDT which gives higher weightage for disposal of appeals by quality orders i.e where order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) is in favour of revenue was to be set aside.[ S.119 , 250 (6A]