Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2018) 171 DTR 185 / 196 TTJ 244/ 67 ITR 26 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Licence fee-Paid for copy righted article-Maintenance fees-Training fees-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 195, 197, 201, Art.7, 12]

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2018) 170 DTR 85 / 64 ITR 99 / 193 TTJ 769 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-No management activity was conducted in India-There was no fixed place of Permanent establishment-No business connection question of estimated income did not arise—Not liable to deduct tax at source or interest -DTAA-India–South Korea. [S. 234A, 234B, Art. 5, 7]

Oricon Enterprises Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 231/ 67 ITR 433 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Disallowance cannot made as without bringing basic fact that expenditure actually incurred to earn exempt income- Matter remanded to the AO. [ R.8D( 2) (ii) ]

Oricon Enterprises Limited v. ACIT(2018) 171 ITD 231/ 67 ITR 433 ( Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.45: Capital gains- Exchange -Slump sale -A transaction by which an undertaking is transferred in consideration of the allottment of shares is an “exchange” and not a “sale”. The fact that the agreement refers to the parties as “seller” and “purchaser” is irrelevant. S. 2(42C) and S. 50B apply only to “sale” and not to “exchange”. As there is no estoppel against a statute, an assessee is entitled to raise the claim regarding non-taxability at any stage of the proceedings [ S.2(42C), 50B ]

Meena Bajaj (Smt) v. ITO (2018) 167 DTR 89 / 192 TTJ 952/ 63 ITR 35 (SN) (Jaipur )( Trib)

S.271(1) (c) : Penalty concealment – Specific charge -concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income –Issue which was not raised in original proceedings cannot be raised in remand proceedings. [ S.254(2) , 271(1)(a), 274 ]

United Health Group Information Services (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 DTR 246 / 192 TTJ 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Transfer pricing adjustment– Software development–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92C]

Titagarh Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 1010 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-capital work in progress- Short term loss-Assessee has sold plant and machinery along with capital WIP, then order passed by AO cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 143(3)]

Sudarshan Goyal v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 22 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A, levy of late fee is not valid. [S. 200A]

State Bank of India v. ITO (TDS) (2018) 195 TTJ 6 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s. 200A, levy of late fee is not valid- Matter remanded. [S. 200A]

Shivjot Developers & Builders Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 193 TTJ 74 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)b

S. 221 : Collection and recovery–Penalty-Tax in default –Survey- Reasonable cause -Cash was generated on account of sale of property- Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 133A]