Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Osho Forge Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 255 Taxman 375 / 303 CTR 832/ 168 DTR 361/( 2019) 410 ITR 198 (P&H)(HC)

S. 153D: Assessment – Search and seizure – Approval – No requirement under S. 153D of the Act for prior approval for passing order pursuant to / complying with remand or revisional directions by CIT [S. 143(3) ,263 ]

Shubhashri Panicker (Mrs) v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 434/166 DTR 1 (Raj)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Validity of service – Notice was sent on the address where assessee was not residing – Service made at the address which was referred on the envelope not of assessee – Presumption of service cannot be drawn –Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.147,292BB ]

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank v PCIT (2018) 166 DTR 407 / 303 CTR 303 (Pat)(HC)

S. 143(1D) : Assessment – Processing of return – Matter pending for scrutiny before competent authority – No mandamus can be issued by Court at this stage for granting refund [ S.237 ]

Dr. Sudha Krishnaswamy (Smt ) .v. CCIT (2018) 255 Taxman 46 /( 2019) 414 ITR 46(Karn)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income – Condonation of delay of 1232 days – When explanation offered was acceptable and genuine hardship established – Condonation application for delay is to be accepted [ S.119 ]

PCIT .v. BNY Mellon International Operations (India) (P.) Ltd (2018) 255 Taxman 397 (Bom)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price -company engaged in providing BPO services – Comparable company engaged in KPO and other IT services hence cannot be accepted as valid comparable

Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Ltd .v. JCIT (2018) 407 ITR 16/ 255 Taxman 477 (Cal)(HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings – No deduction is allowable if return of income is not filed within due date of the filing of the return. [ 80AC, 139(1), 139(4) ]

PCIT .v. Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd (2018) 255 Taxman 392 (Bom)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue -Purchase of computer software for up-gradation of existing computer software – Revenue expenditure even though it provides enduring benefit- Expenses for employees welfare -foster safe working environment is revenue expenditure – The test of one-time payment or not is not the sole test to determine nature of expenditure.

PCIT .v. TIL Ltd (2018) 255 Taxman 373 (Cal)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Sales commission paid to agent in Iraq in relation to sale of trucks and particular person to be treated as allowable business expenditure – Capital or revenue-Drawings and designing charges related to computer software – Cannot be treated as capital asset.

Sterling Holiday Financial Services Ltd .v. ACIT (2018) 255 Taxman 184 (Mad)(HC).

S. 32 : Depreciation – Tribunal’s observation that transaction lacks bonafides – No material to dislodge factual findings recorded by Tribunal – Matter remanded to AO by Tribunal justified .

PCIT .v. Durga Construction Co. (2018) 255 Taxman 449 (Guj)(HC).

S. 32 : Depreciation – Higher rate – Transportation- Motor lorries used for providing specialized equipments and trained manpower for mining and transportation of excavated minerals on hire is eligible for higher rate of depreciation