Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


B.U. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates v. CBDT (2018) 164 DTR 201/ 255 Taxman 60/ 302 CTR 472 (Delhi)( HC)

S.139:Return of Income- Delay of five months due to illness of Auditor however details of illness and any proof of doctor’s prescription was not given- Delay was not condoned- Discipline on time limits regarding filing of returns had to be complied and respected, unless compelling and good reasons were shown and established for grant of extension of time . [ S.80IB ,119]

PCIT v. Evalueserve Sez (Gurgaon) (P) Ltd. (2018) 164 DTR 297/302 CTR 172 (Delhi)(HC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing -Arms’ length price- Functionally different -Exclusion of six comparables by the Tribunal by the Tribunal was held to be justified .

CIT v. Ace India Abodes Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 118 (Raj)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits -20% expenditure -Purchase of land as stock in trade -Villagers paid the amount in cash in the absence of banking facilities deletion of addition was held to be justified [ R.6DD(h)]

Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v CIT (2018) 163 DTR 42 / 301 CTR 252 (Bom)( HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Evidence in the form of bills etc. was not produced. Disallowance was confirmed . [ R.6DD(h) ,(j )]

PCIT v. Mobisoft Tele Solutions (P) LTD. (P) LTD. (2018)404 ITR 203/ 163 DTR 289 / 301 CTR 582/90 taxmann.com 383 (P&H) (HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Capital or revenue-Fees paid for Licence to use copy right was held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 496/161 DTR 170 / 300 CTR 98 (Raj)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Invested own money therefore no disallowance of interest can be made in respect of borrowed funds [S. 36(1)(iii), R.8D ]

ACIT v. Agra Development Authority (2018) 407 ITR 562 / 163 DTR 121/ 302 CTR 308 (All)(HC)

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Cancellation notice having been issued on 6.03.2012, it did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Matter was remanded to Tribunal to decide the issue on merits .[ S.2(15)]

CIT v. Satya Sheel Khosla. (2018) 164 DTR 293/ 305 CTR 534 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Compensation received for loss of source of income and non competition fee is held to be capital receipts [ S.17(3), 28(va), Prior to Amendment, 2016 wef 1-04-2107 ]

CIT v. Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 496/ 161 DTR 170 / 300 CTR 98 (Raj)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Trade advances which were in nature of commercial transactions cannot be assessed as deemed dividend

Autoriders India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 376/161 DTR 217 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Additional ground – Omission to strike off the relevant clause in the notice issued under section 271 r/w. section 271(1)(c) is a legal issue hence require to be admitted .No striking of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of AO and no clear and crystalised charge has been conveyed to the assesse under S.271(1)(c), which has to be met by it. Proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted .[ S.254(1) .