Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Qualcomm Incorporated v. DDIT (2018) 65 ITR 248/ 52 CCH 0338 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Royalty income of assessee earned from OEMs situated outside India for the patents licensed to OEMs for manufacture of CDMA Network outside India was not chargeable to tax u/s 9(1)(vi)(c) .

DCIT v. Shipra Hotels Ltd (2018) 63 ITR 70 (SN) 52 CCH 0288 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 4: Charge of income-tax –Capital or revenue -Entertainment subsidy received under Uttar Pradesh Government scheme for promotion of construction of multiplexes is a capital receipt.[S.2(24)]

DCIT v. Raipur Development Authority Bajrang Market (2018)64 ITR 41 (SN) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 2(15): Charitable purpose – Applicability of proviso to S. 2(15) of the Act is a question of fact and should be decided on facts of the case and no generalization is possible. [ S.11, 12 ]

Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 259 Taxman 49 /171 DTR 245/ 305 CTR 491(Bom) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Bogus purchases- Hotel business- information from sales tax authorities -Hawala Traders – Assessee offering 15% of gross profit in the course of assessment proceedings with a view to buy peace and unending litigation which was accepted by the Assessing Officer without making any inquiry – Commissioner revising the order on the ground that on there was no discussion in the order of Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer limiting addition under S.69C only on basis of GP ratio is held to be not justified -Tribunal affirming the revision order -High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal . [ S.69C ]

Lalitnirman Business Development (P.) Ltd. v. ITO 259 Taxman 23 (Bom)( HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Passing the Ex -parte order without ascertaining whether notice was duly served and assessee had avoided intentionally and deliberately to attend case of hearing would result in miscarriage of justice -Ex -parte order is seta side. [ R. 24 ]

OPJ Trading (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 259 taxman 36 (Guj) ( HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate – Certificate issued on the basis of tentative re-working of assessee’s accounts formed a prima facie opinion and suggested collection of tax at reduced rate of 1 per cent is justified – Not considering the projection of losses for reduced rate is help to be proper .[ S.197(2) ]

CIT v. Khairabad Eye Hospital ( 2018) 259 Taxman 2 / 98 taxmann.com 265 ( All) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed,CIT v. Khairabad Eye Hospital. 259 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 80G : Donation -Renewal of certificate – Commissioner is not justified in denying renewal application during relevant assessment year without there being any new circumstances.[ S.11, 12A ]

PCIT v. Himachal Fibers Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 4 ( Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;PCIT v. Himachal Fibers Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 3 (SC)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share capital -Identity of the share applicant was established – Additions cannot be made on surmises without conducting any further inquiry .

PCIT v. Vaidya Panalalmanilal(HUF) (2018) 259 Taxman 19 (Guj)( HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence -Consideration that arose in hands of HUF on sale of capital asset had been invested for purchase of new residential house in name of some of its members instead of assessee (HUF)- Deduction is allowable .[ S.45 ]

PCIT v. Rambagh Palace Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 31 (Delhi) ( HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Ad -hoc disallowance of 5% – Tribunal is justified in holding that where the assessee had furnished names and PAN numbers of all vendors to whom it had paid repair and maintenance charges for their services disallowance of ad-hoc disallowance of 5% of expenses is held to be not justified .