Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (2018)406 ITR 406/ 256 Taxman 32 (Mad)( HC)

Interpretation of taxing Statutes — Entries — Depreciation-Precedent – If a particular article would fall within the description by the force of the words used, it is impermissible to ignore the word description. Ratio in Bimetal Bearings Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1991) 80 STC 167(SC)

ITO v. Alia Creative Consultants P. Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 175 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.271(1)(c): Penalty – Concealment – Failure by assessing officer to specify exact charge for which penalty proceeding was initiated – Penalty quashed.[ S. 10A,115JB ]

Gnyandeep Kantipudi v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 72 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S.271(1)(c): Penalty-Concealment- Income from other Sources-nexus not proved-Levy of penalty is justified .

Reena Gambhir v. PCIT (2018) 191 TTJ 19 (UO) (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – revision of order u/s 153A – held, no incriminating material was found and therefore, the AO could not have made any addition – Held, therefore, the CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 as the order of the AO was not erroneous. [S. 153A]

GIE Jewels v. ITO (2018) 192 TTJ 852 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance Tax – Book profits- Alternate Minimum Tax -Interest is leviable [S.115JC]

Ramesh Chand Soni (HUF) v. ITO (2018) 161 DTR 205 / 191 TTJ 137 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 150 : Assessment – Order on appeal – Tribunal gave direction in the case of one person for assessing the income in the hands of the correct person –For the purpose of sub-section (2) of S. 150, the order under appeal would be the order of CIT(A) and, when the same was made, the limitation of 6 years had already expired to assess the correct person – Held, reassessment in case of the correct person was barred by limitation [S. 149]

Sahara India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 1/ 164 DTR 49 / 192 TTJ 655 (TM) (Luck.) (Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – offering of income and allowability of expenses – Assessee floated a scheme wherein it received money in first year and the payment to the subscribers were to flow in subsequent years – held, taxing of income in first year and allowability of expenses in subsequent years based on cash system presented a skewed picture – Held, method of accounting should be such which does not affect the interest of the Revenue and at the same time should not put the assessee in undue hardship. Held, mercantile system to be followed.[ S.4 ]

Sahara India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 1/ 164 DTR 49 / 192 TTJ 655 (TM) (Luck.) (Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Assessee followed mercantile system of accounting – Certain percentage of expenses were debited in the year and the balance was deferred – Also, certain percentage of income was booked in the year and balance was deferred for a period of 12 years – Held, the accounts were liable to be rejected.

India Power Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 42 (SN) (Kolk)(Trib.)

S.115JB: Book profits —Generation and distribution of electricity — Accounts to be prepared under state legislation — Provision computing book profit is not applicable.

Samar Singh Parihar v. ITO (2018) 62 ITR 61 (Jabalpur)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee – source of such cash deposit was cash withdrawal from the account of one contractor – Held, entire cash deposit cannot be taxed – such cash deposit is part of business receipts – Held, to meet the interest of justice 8% taxable.