Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd ( 2019)103 taxmann.com 57 / 262 Taxman 176/ 412 ITR 420 / 307 CTR 473/ 175 DTR 345(SC), www.itatonline.org/Editorial :Review petition is dismissed ,Sharad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 191 (SC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Diversion by overriding title -Sharing of profit-The AO has to take into account the manner in which the business works, the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price are decided and determine what amount forms part of the profit -Whatever is the profit component is sharing of profit/distribution of profit and the rest is deductible as expenditure –question of law is answered partly in favour of the revenue and partly in favour of the assessee- Matter is remitted to the AO to undertake the exercise as stated in the judgement after giving an opportunity to the respective assesses. [ S.40A(2),Sugarcane ( Control) Order 1966 clauses , 3, 5A ]

Board of Control for Cricket in India v. ACIT (TDS) (2018) 68 ITR 372/ 196 TTJ 1057 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 272A : Penalty — delay in filing statement of tax deducted at source — difficulties in initial stage of change from manual filing to electronic filing of returns – plausible explanation given – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 200(3), 272A(2)(k), 273B]

Bijaynagar Kraya Vikrya Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 64 ITR 7 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Revision-No specific query was raised by the AO regarding allowability of provision for gratuity and general reserve-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 40A(9)]

S. Ashok Kumar v. ACIT (2018) 64 ITR 57 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Delay of 565 days is condoned-Voluntary offer of income in revised return-Dropping of penalty proceedings-Commissioner cannot substitute his view in revision proceedings for assessing officer view for dropping penalty. [S. 254(1), 271(1)(c)]

Bycell Telecommunications India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT, (2018) 193 TTJ 565 / 90 taxmann.com 268/( 2019) 174 DTR 97 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Cash credits- Share capital- AO had made enquiry by seeking information from Switzerland Tax Authorities through proper channel of FT & TR division of CBDT, for exchange of information so as to verify identity, source of funds and creditworthiness of holding company and its promoters- Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 68]

Cyient Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 69 / 167 DTR 281(Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Additional ground–validity of the assessment can be challenged at any time as it goes to the root of the matter and is a legal issue.

BNB Investment and Properties Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2018) 68 ITR 567 (Delhi) (Trib.) Ranjan Gupta v. Dy.CIT (2018) 68 ITR 567 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal—Duties-Additional ground- Validity of assessment is legal in nature–Admitted. [S. 153C]

Astec Lifesciences Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 67 ITR 485 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Limitation-Delay of 285 days-No material prove bona fides attempts made in filing appeal, mere self-serving documents cannot condoned the huge delay-Appeal was dismissed. [S. 246A]

Asterix Reinforced Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 64 ITR 79 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Non filing of appeal in electronic form-Appeal cannot be dismissed on Technical grounds during changeover period.

Balraj Prakashchand Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 62 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 221 : Penalty—Failure to pay self-assessment tax—amendment prescribing mandatory charge of interest—Amendment does not envisage penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax. [S.140A(3), 221(1)]