Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Prinku landfin (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application-Investors have complied with details u/s 133(6) and the summons was not issued to the investors though request was made by the assessee, addition was held to be not justified . [ S. 131,133(6) ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.147: Reassessment -In the notice u/s 143(2) earlier assessment year is mentioned , the said notice cannot be said to be in valid [ S.143(2), 148 ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.69: Unexplained investments –Family settlement- Sale deed showed cash consideration was paid therefore addition as unexplained investment was held to be justified .

Tarlochan Singh v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 171 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.45: Capital gains- Family settlement – As per the will the assessee was not entitle to receive any property. As the assessee had no right title in the property accordingly the some received towards one time settlement cannot be assessed as capital gains . However the amount received by the assessee requires verification hence the matter was remanded .[ S.2(47) ]

Bioved Research Society. v. CIT (2018) 170 ITD 160 (All) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Bogus donation – Merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing without supplying the copy to the assessee , cancellation of registration is held to be bad in law . [ S.12A,35(1)(iii) , 80G ]

ITO v. Randhir Singh (2018) 163 DTR 10/192 TTJ 64 ( SMC) (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Unexplained investments – Remand report- Strictures-Once the AO was satisfied in the remand proceedings and did not oppose not controverted the documents filed by the assessee, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(A) considering his own remand report.Merely on account of change of the AO, presumably the incumbent cannot be allowed to file appeals willy nilly. Such rampant careless behaviour shakes the public trust and faith reposed in the authority of the AO to act fairly and impartially . [ S. 69C,251 ]

HLL Lifecare Limited v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 1(UO) / 66 ITR 361 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers- Fresh claim can be made before the appellate authorities if the assessee demonstrates that he was unable to make such a claim through a revised return. [S. 35D,139(5)]

ITO v. H & S Software Development & Knowledge Management Centre P. Ltd. (2018) 62 ITR 65/ 90 taxmann.com 333 (Delhi )( Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – DRP directed the TPO to give working capital adjustment using OECD methodology and to apply SBI Prime Lending rate as interest rate and hence the impugned Order passed did not require any interference.

ITO v. Copal Research (I)(P.) Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 129 / 191 TTJ 1000 / 90 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi) ( Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – A company having a calendar year ending, cannot be compared with the assessee having a financial year ending notwithstanding functional similarity between two companies.

IMSI India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 191 TTJ 662/ 166 DTR 337 (Delhi )Trib.)

S. 80-IC : Special category States– Support services provided to IT companies by the assessee through its own staff is eligible for deduction .