Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


PCIT v. John Poomkudy (2018) 409 ITR 149 /( 2019) 261 Taxman 56/ 174 DTR 370/ 307 CTR 81 (Ker) (HC)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land- Solitary instance -Adventure in the nature of trade -Business -Purchase of agricultural land and sale of the said land after few years – Not deriving any income or not making any improvement of land and intention to earn profit cannot be the sole test to treat the transaction as adventure in the nature of trade – Solitary instance of sale alone could not characterise the transactions as an adventure in the nature of trade. [S. 2 (13)]

ACIT v. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 1 (UO) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search- No incriminating material was found at the time of search- Assessment is void in law.

ACIT v. Ganesh J. Modi (2018) 65 ITR 30 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Reopening of assessment cannot be permitted merely on ground that there is change in view of AO and he subsequently believes that earlier view is incorrect. [S.133(6), 143(3)]

ACIT v. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 1 (UO) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years–Reassessment notice to be seta-side where no income had escaped assessment on account of assessee’s failure to disclose true facts in the assessment. [S. 148, 153A]

ACIT v. Rich and Royal (2018) 63 ITR 65 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Bogus purchases–Accommodation entries-Readymade garments-Addition of 25% is held to be proper. [S. 69]

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

S.115JB : Book profits-Provisions for computing book profits
is not applicable to Assessee company, engaged in the business of generation and distribution of electricity, who is required to prepare its books of account under the State Legislation and not as per the provisions of relevant Companies Act, 1956.

ACIT v. Kishore Kumar (2018) 66 ITR 158 (Vishakha)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp Duty Valuation – Where the assessee explained the reasons for fetching a lesser rate on sale of immovable property as compared to the Stamp Duty Valuation, the AO should have remitted the matter to the DVO for determination of the FMV of the immovable property. [S. 45]

ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) ( Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible- Deduction at source-Word ‘payable’ occurring in section 40(a)(ia) not only covers cases where amount is yet to be paid but also those cases where amount has actually been paid.

ACIT v. Kasiviswanadham (A)(2018) 66 ITR525 (Vishakha)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source– Contractor – In absence of express or implicit contract between the assesse and the maistries, payments made to the labourers through maistries / group leaders did not attract deduction at source hence no disallowances can be made. [S. 194C]

ACIT v. Dish TV India Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 897/ 169 DTR 253 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Short deduction – Precedent -Deducted the tax applying the provision of S.194C @2% instead of 194J @ 10%- No disallowances can be made.
[ S.194C, 194J ]