Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 169 ITD 675 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay -Limitation of two years prior to amendment , by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2014, with effect from 1-10-2014 and seven years thereafter [ S. 201(3) ]

STevapharm India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 619 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel -AO has to adhere to mandatory requirement of the section- Even in remand proceedings the Assessing Officer has to first a draft assessment order before passing a final assessment order- Appeal before the Tribunal is held to be not maintainable . [ S.92C , 246A, 253 ]

ITO v. NVS Builders (P.) Ltd. (2018) 169 ITD 679 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.143(2): Assessment -Notice -Order is held to be bad in law as the notice u/s 143(2) was not served with in one year of filing of return .[S.143(3) ]

Mahaveer Yadav v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 717 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S.45(2): Capital gains- Conversion of assets in to stock in trade -Agricultural land converted in to residential plots as stock in trade and sold capital gain is to be computed as per S.45(2) of the Act.[ S.45 ]

K.Vijay Lakshmi, Hyderabad. v. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 597 (SMC)(Hyd) (Trib.) Adinarayana Reddy Kummeta. v. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 683( SMC) (Hyd) (Trib.)

S.45: Capital gains- Development agreement – Assessee has handed over possession of plot to developer therefore there was transfer and liable to capital gains tax- As per the agreement has parted with only 50 percent of property ,only 50 percent can be taxed . As regards provision S.45(5A) being substantive provision introduced by the Finance Act , 2017 cannot be applied to the development agreement entered in to earlier-Reassessment was also held to be valid . [ S.2(47)(v), 45(5A),147 ]

Balkrishna P. Wadhwan. v. DCIT (2018) 169 ITD 693 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.45: Capital gains- Business income –Land -Sale consideration received in respect of property received on dissolution of partnership of firm of his father was held to be assessable as capital gain and not as business income [ S. 2(14),28(i) ]

Tulsi Shipping ( P) Ltd v. ITO ( 2018) 169 ITD 629 ( Mum) ( Trib)

S.28(i): Business income- Income from house property – Shipping agency and warehousing – Activities of the assessee involve more than letting therefore assessable as income from business and not as income from house property-New tangible material hence reassessment is bad in law [ S. 22, 147, 148 ]

ITO v. Altitus Management Advisors (P.) Ltd. (2018) 169 ITD 702 (Mum) ( Trib.)

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Interest free refundable deposit from tenants- Addition cannot be made in respect of notional interest on refundable deposits. [ S.23(1)(b) ]

ITO v. Altitus Management Advisors (P.) Ltd. (2018) 169 ITD 702 (Mum) ( Trib.)

S.24: Income from house property- Leasing -Interest paid on borrowed loan which was utilised for acquiring property is held to be allowable deduction [ S.24(b) ]

ITO v. Altitus Management Advisors (P.) Ltd. (2018) 169 ITD 702 (Mum) ( Trib.)

S.22: Income from house property -Property leasing – Contributions received from tenants towards sinking fund cannot be assessed as rental income.