Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ITO v. Prankit Exports (2018) 62 ITR 243 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure –Bogus purcahses -Estimation of profits embedded in purchases at 12.5% is reasonable when the assessee failed to prove the purchases to be genuine and also failed to produce the selling parties during the course of the assessment proceedings. [ S.133(6),145 ]

ITO v. Sringeri Technologies (P) Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 803/ 169 DTR 321 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share capital- Identity , genuiness and credit worthiness was probed by filing PAN master data , Return ackowledge ment return etc. Deletion of addition was held to be justified .[ S.133(6) ]

Indo Swiss Anti-Shock Ltd. v. ITO(2018) 62 ITR 280 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Contractor – The matter was restored back to the AO to verify as to whether tax was deposited by the parties or not. [S.194C(6)]

IHR Associates v. Dy. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 70 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Bogus purcahses -The assessee was doing major works for Govt. Departments and the said Departments also confirmed the authenticity of work and merely because the assessee could not produce the parties, purchases could be held as non-genuine.Disallowance was confiremd of only Rs 5 lakhs . [ S.131 , 145 ]

ITO v. Sunflower Pharmacy (2018) 62 ITR 275 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Circular No. 5/2012 dated 01-8-2012 ( 2012) 346 ITR 95(St) prohibiting pharmaceutical companies from giving any monetary benefits to doctors, was applicable from assessment year 2013-14 onwards- As the addition was deleted consequently penalty levied was also deleted . [S.271(1)(c)]

IMC Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 73 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – The AO has to first record satisfaction having regard to accounts of the assessee that the claim made by the assessee with regard to non-incurrence of any expenditure for the purpose of earning income is incorrect before proceeding to make any disallowance. [ R.8D ]

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

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – No disallowance can be made if no exempt income is earned. [R.8D ]

HMDA v. CIT(E) (2018) 161 DTR 82 / 191 TTJ 122 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 12AA :Procedure for registration –Trust or institution – Registration granted cannot be denied in the subsequent years when there is no change in the objcts of the assessee only on the prseumtion that proviso to S.2(15) is applicable [2(15) ]

IILM Foundation v. Addl. DIT(E) (2018) 61 ITR 186 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – The denial of exemption was held to be justified as the Trust was running schools and institutes on a commercial basis howvver donations made by the assessee to another charitable trust should be regarded as application of income towards the object of the trust. [S. 2(15) 13]

ITO v. Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. (2015) 154 ITD 421 / (2018) 191 TTJ 371 (Guwahati ) ( Trib.)

S.10(27):Co-operative society- Schedule Castes or Schedule Tribes –Matter remanded for fresh disposal .