Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Efftronics Systems P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 63 ITR 25 (SN) (Visakha.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Scientific research expenditure – original assessment completed after considering all facts – reassessment based on subsequent amendments applicable to subsequent years – Held, no new tangible material – Held, reassessment bad in law. [S. 35(2AB)]

Dy. CIT v. Wind World (India) Limited (2018) 63 ITR 599 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Concluded assessment reopened after four years on the basis of assessment of subsequent years – Held, no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts – Held, reassessment not valid.

Dy. CIT v. Southern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 1/ 166 DTR 1 / 64 ITR 257 / 193 TTJ 657 (TM) (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit –Provision for bad and doubtful debts – Assessee made a provision for bad and doubtful debts – It was maintaining a separate provision account – Certain bad debts were written off in such account – Provision amount lesser than the bad debts written off – Held, assessee eligible for higher deduction – Held, therefore, provision amount cannot be termed as unascertained liability and has to be allowed – Held, tribunal cannot direct AO to allow greater deduction-Prior period expose cannot be added while computing book profits-Provision for leave encashment ascertained liability and therefore, cannot be added to book profit-Provision for non-moving and obsolete stock not a provision and also not debited to P&L account and therefore, cannot be added to book profit- Provision for fringe benefit tax not similar to provision for income tax and that fringe benefit was a liability of the employer therefore, cannot be added to book profit.[S. 36(1)(vii), 36(1)(viia)]

Dy. CIT v. Usha Martin Ltd. (2018) 66 ITR 18 ( SN)(Ranchi)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit–Amount debited under P&L a/c towards debenture redemption reserve fund is a known liability and therefore, cannot be added to the book profit.

Dy. CIT v. Tetra Pak India (P) Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 48 (UO)( (Pune) Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – operating profit – liabilities and doubtful debt written back as well as design income and services income form part of operating profit for computing operation profit while calculating OP/OC ratio.

Dy. CIT v. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 150 / 64 ITR 392/ 170 ITD 430/ 166 DTR 233 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price –Jurisdiction of TPO and AO – Held, TPO required to simply determined to the ALP irrespective of the benefits accruing to the assessee – Held, TPO cannot determine the ALP at Nil on the ground that no benefit accrued to the assessee -Held, AO to decide on deductibility of expense u/s 37(1) – Matter set aside. [ S.37(1)]

CIT(IT) v. Dominos Pizza International Franchising Inc. (2018) 171 ITD 321/ 193 TTJ 963/ 166 DTR 201 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief – Permanent Establishment – Assessee, a US company entered into a master franchise agreement with an Indian company for franchise of Dominos Pizza Stores – It provided certain store/consulting services to the Indian Company – Indian company paid store opening fees – assessee was entitled to charge 3 per cent of sales of store of Indian Company and further 3 per cent on sale of their sub-franchise store –Held, profit/loss from the business of Indian company and sub-franchisee belong to them – Held, none of the conditions or clauses of Permanent Establishment ,Article 5 were attracted and therefore, the Indian company did not constitute PE of the assessee in India-DTAA-India- USA.[Art.5 ]

Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 14 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 79 : Carry forward and set off losses – Change in share holdings – Companies which public are not substantial interested – Amalgamation – Scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court – Held, such scheme approved in public interest and cannot be disturbed by the Department merely because assessee was not eligible for the same u/s 72A – Held, doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel applicable – Held, capital loss and business loss of amalgamating companies available to the amalgamated company [S. 72A]

Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 14 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 74 : Losses – Capital loss– shares sold at meagre value – sale price disbelieved by AO and accordingly, capital loss disallowed – Held, AO did not point out any discrepancy in the sale consideration – Held, AO did not conduct any enquiry in the hands of the purchaser – Held, loss cannot be disallowed.

Edel Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 86 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses – losses from non-speculation business can be set off against profit from speculation business . [S. 73]