Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT ( 2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – There could have been no revision by Commissioner without pointing out in impugned order as to what was kind of enquiry that Assessing Officer ought to have made, which he failed to make. [ S.10(2A)]

ATC Telecom Tower (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 192 TTJ 16/ 169 DTR 265 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Share application money – Lack of proper inquiry-Revision is held to be valid .[ S.68, 147 ]

Rajdhani Sytems and Estates P. Ltd. v. ACIT 61 ITR 664 (Cuttack) (Trib.)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders – The assessment order cannot be merged with reassessment order as both are two separate orders. [ S.143(3) ,147 ]

National Dairy Research Institute v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 271 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay -Employee of society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 – The Employees of society cannot be equated with employees of Central Government and, therefore, applying clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and treating assessee as assessee-in-default is justified. [ S. 17 ,192. R.3 ]

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 196 / 64 ITR 497 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194J : Deduction of tax at source – Fee for professional or technical services – Roaming charges paid to other operators for using their network, payment in is not liable to deduct tax at source .

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 196 / 64 ITR 497 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction of tax at source -Trade discount – Discount offered is to be regarded as ‘commission’ -Liable to deduct tax at source .

ACIT v. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 78 (SN) (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment – After expiry of four years – No accommodation entries were found in books of assessee- The AO plainly relied on the information from the investment wing, there was nothing in the reassessment recorded for reopening of assessment – Reassessment is held to be not valid . [ S.148 ]

ACIT v. Origin Express (I) North Pvt. Ltd (2018) 63 ITR 71 (SN) (Delhi)

S. 145: Method of accounting – Failure to produce the necessary details as asked by the AO-Rejection of the books of accounts is held to be justified .[S.145(3) ]

Alhind Builders v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 6 (SN)(Cochin) ( Trib))

S. 132(4): Search and Seizure – Statement on oath – Statement was made on oath by the Managing Partner of a firm that the income returned was less than the actual, and which was not retracted in a reasonable period of time, the addition made by the AO of the undisclosed income was sustainable. [ S.132 ]

ACIT v. Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. ((2018) 165 DTR 93 /193 TTJ 256 (Agra ) (Trib.)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – An order passed after the search and seizure operation cannot confer jurisdiction to the AO, if particulars of the assessee including its name, status, address, PAN and AO before whom it was originally being assessed were not correctly mentioned and also no opportunity of being heard was given – Such defects cannot be said to be technical in nature and are not curable u/s. 292B of the Act. [ S.292B ]