Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Shrikant Mohta v. CIT ( Cal)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 153A : Assessment – Search- When search operations are conducted u/s 132, the obligation of the assessee to file any return remains suspended till such time that a notice is issued for such purpose u/s 153A(1)(a). If the return is filed within the reasonable time permitted by such notice u/s 153A(1)(a), the return is deemed to have been filed within the time permitted u/s 139 (1)/ 139(3) and loss can be carried forward .[ S.72, 80,139(1) , 139(3)]

Ashok Hi – Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT( Indore)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.145:Method of accounting – Real estate construction contracts –Consistency method of accounting- Completed contract- Percentage completion- Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9- AO was not justified in applying the percentage completion method on the assessee merely on the basis that it was followed by the developer JSM DPL and arbitrarily making addition to the income ignored the fact that project completion method/ completed contract method of accounting has been consistently adopted by the assessee . [ S. 5,43C]

Ashok Hi – Tech Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT( Indore)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.145:Method of accounting – Real estate construction contracts –Consistency method of accounting- Completed contract- Percentage completion- Accounting Standards AS-7 and AS-9- AO was not justified in applying the percentage completion method on the assessee merely on the basis that it was followed by the developer JSM DPL and arbitrarily making addition to the income ignored the fact that project completion method/ completed contract method of accounting has been consistently adopted by the assessee . [ S. 5,43C]

Bellsea Ltd. V. ADIT ( Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 9(1)(i):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection -The duration of 12 months specified to constitute a PE is activity specific qua the site, construction, assembly or installation project. Preparatory work for tendering of contract cannot be included in the period. The activity qua the project comes to an end when the work gets completed and the responsibility of the contractor with respect to that activity comes to end. Onus is heavily upon the revenue to establish that that assessee’s activity had crossed the threshold period of 12 months- Accordingly no income of the assessee on the contract executed by assessee in India can be held to be taxable in terms of Article 7- DTAA-India –Cyprus [ Art .5,7 ]

DCIT v. Gilbarco veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. ( Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 2(22)(e): Deemed dividend- Both the registered and beneficial shareholders are two individuals and not the assessee-company- Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend-.The argument of the Dept, based on Gopal and Sons (HUF) v CIT ( 2017) 399 ITR 1(SC) that even though the assessee-recipient of money is neither the registered nor the beneficial shareholder of the payer company, the money should be assessed as “deemed dividend” is not correct .

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) (No.2) v. CCIT ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 257 Taxman 3 / 303 CTR 553 (SC) CIT v. HDFC Ltd ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/168 DTR 145/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) CIT v. Rajesh Projects ( India ) (P) Ltd ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145 / 257 Taxman 3/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. ACIT ( 2018)406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145 / 303 CTR 553 ( SC) ITO v. United Bank of India ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145 / 303 CTR 553 ( SC) Editorial: Affirmed Rajesh Projects ( India) (P) Ltd v. CIT ( 2017)392 ITR 483/ 148 DTR 33/ 293 CTR 121 ( Delhi ) (HC)

S. 194I : Deduction at source – Rent -Annual rent paid under lease deed is rent – liable to deduct tax at source on the payment of lease rent to NOIDA /Greater NOIDA .[ S.10(20), (10(20A)]

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) (No.2) v. CCIT ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 257 Taxman 3/ 303 CTR 553 (SC) CIT v. HDFC Ltd ( 2018)406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) CIT v. Rajesh Projects ( India ) (P) Ltd ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 257 Taxman 3/303 CTR 553 ( SC) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. ACIT ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145 / 303 CTR 553 ( SC) ITO v. United Bank of India ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145 / 303 CTR 553( SC)

S. 10(20): Local authority – New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is not local authority – Hence is not exempted from payment of income-tax under S. 10(20) and S.10(20A) . Followed , New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) v. CCIT ( 2018) 95 taxmann.com 58/ 303 CTR 448 / 168 DTR 48 (SC)

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) (No.2) v. CCIT ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 257 Taxman 3 / 303 CTR 553 (SC) CIT v. HDFC Ltd ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) CIT v. Rajesh Projects ( India ) (P) Ltd ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145 / 257 Taxman 3/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. ACIT ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) ITO v. United Bank of India ( 2018) 406 ITR 209/ 168 DTR 145/ 303 CTR 553 ( SC) Editorial: Affirmed Rajesh Projects ( India) (P) Ltd v. CIT ( 2017)392 ITR 483/ 148 DTR 33/ 293 CTR 121 ( Delhi ) (HC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities- NOIDA and Greater NOIDA are covered by the notification No .S.O. 3489 dt 22nd oct, 1970 -Interest received by them is exempt [ S.194A(3) (iii) (f) ]

CIT v. Canara Bank ( 2018) 406 ITR 161/168 DTR 33/ 303 CTR 433 / 257 Taxman 12 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Canara Bank ( 2016) 386 ITR 504/ 141 DTR 73 / 289 CTR 75 ( All)(HC) is affirmed .

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities- NOIDA and Greater NOIDA are covered by the notification No .S.O. 3489 dt 22nd oct, 1970 -Interest received by them is exempt-Bank is not liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.194A(3) (iii) (f) ]

HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 168 DTR 1/ 195 TTJ 1 ( TM )(Amritsar)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c):Penalty –Concealment -The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of ‘concealment of particulars of income’, but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’ (and vice versa). In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. Such error is not procedural but goes to the root of the matter and is not saved by S. 292B. The error renders the penalty order unsustainable in law [ S.292B ]