Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. S. R. A. Systems Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 392 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Doctrine of merger—Relief granted by CIT (A)-Revision to consider eligibility of exemption is held to be not valid [ S.10A(2)(ii), 10A(2)(iii)]

CIT v. Progressive Education Society. (2019) 410 ITR 370/ 306 CTR 614 / 261 Taxman 456/ 174 DTR 281 / 262 Taxman 21(SC)/CIT (E ) v. Progressive Education Society. ( 2019) 177 DTR 58/308 CTR 198 (SC) Editorial : Order in CIT( E) v. Progressive Education Society ( 2019) 410 ITR 371/ 102 Taxmann.com 401 (Bom)(HC) is set aside.Nom No 52 of 2018 dt 9-03 -2018 is set aside .

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court–Delay of 362 days-Difference of opinion between two officers–Appeal was filed on the basis of legal opinion-Delay was condoned and remanded the matter to High Court to decide on merits- Cost of Rs. 1 lakh is awarded on department which is to be paid to the assessee.

Ambience Developers And Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT(2018) 171 DTR 369/ (2019) 410 ITR 289/ 307 CTR 516 (Delhi) (HC) Ambience Hotels and Resorts P. Ltd v. CIT(2018) 171 DTR 369/ (2019) 410 ITR 289 307 CTR 516 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Transfer of income without transfer of asset—Finding that arrangement was with intention to avoid incidence of tax in hands of owner Assessee–Income was taxed in hands of owner— No Infirmity In Order of Tribunal. [S. 22, 60]

Prameela Krishna (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 261 Taxman 37 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–Failure of Appellate Tribunal to consider the question of jurisdiction is miscarriage of justice–Tribunal is required to reassess material and thereafter come to a logical conclusion- Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 147]

CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 271/ 307 CTR 464/ 174 DTR 246 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Commission or brokerage–Bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of commission paid to agent, it is bank charges for providing one of banking services – Not liable to deduct tax at source.

Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 410 ITR 356 / 260 Taxman 253/ 173 DTR 105 /306 CTR 251(Delhi) (HC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–Method of accounting—Difficulty in allocating expenses-No allegation of mala fides—Order directing Special Audit is justified. [S. 80 IC, 145]

Alwaye Chartered Accountants Association v. UOI (2019) 261 Taxman 4 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income -Extension of due date- flood at State of Kerala -General direction for extending due date for filing returns would be contrary to scheme of Act- Specific grievances of assessees in individual cases could be dealt with by CBDT on receipt of the application-Court also directed the CBDT to consider holding a camp sitting in Kerala for the purposes of considering the applications of the assesses. [S. 119(2)(a)(b)], [139A]

Frolic Reality (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 261 Taxman 32 / 176 DTR 51/ 307 CTR 764 (MP)(HC)

S. 124 : Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Place of filing of e- returns- Registered office at Mumbai–Branch office at Indore–e- returns from inspection filed at Indore–Notice issued u/s. 143(2) by the Indore Assessing Officer is held to be valid-Rejection of application by Chief Commissioner is held to be justified. [S. 143(2)]

Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 260 Taxman 314 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer-Jurisdiction of TPO- Whether can examine any transaction which come to his notice during course of proceedings though not referred to him by the AO- Passing ad-interim relief, the AO is prevented from passing any further orders till issue raised is decided by the Court. [S. 92C]

CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2019) 417 ITR 479/ 260 Taxman 249 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd ( 2019) 416 ITR 138 (St)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price-Corporate guarantee- Arm’s length price of corporate guarantee cannot be determined on the basis of bank guarantee- Adjustment of 3% of the amount of guarantee given by the assessee is held to be not justified.