Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


JCIT v. Bharat Business Channels Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 628(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage -Trade discount granted to principal distributor could not be held as commission and, hence not liable for deduction of tax at source .

JCIT v. Bharat Business Channels Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 621 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors – Installation of set-top box by ISPs amounts to works contract and as no technical expertise is required provision of S.194J cannot be applicable .[ S.194J ]

Bhinmal Contractors Property and Land Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 599 / 169 DTR 75/ 195 TTJ 101 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.80IA:Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development-Developer- Contractor- Business of construction/development of Infrastructure facilities such as roads and providing necessary and crucial components of Railway system is entitle to deduction as developer . [ S.80IA(4) ]

Vibhu Aggarwal. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 580 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money -Search -Jewellary- Belonged to a wealthy family and jewellery was received on occasions from relatives, excess jewellery was very much reasonable addition was held to be not justified .

Hemato Oncology Clinic (Ahmedabad) (P.) Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 621 / 169 DTR 315 / 194 TTJ 885 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible – Excessive or unreasonable -Salaries paid to Doctors who were reputed professionals in their fields could not be held to be excessive and unreasonable hence disallowance of 15% of salaries was deleted .

Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 616 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure –Keyman insurance policy in the name of directors is held to be allowable as business expenditure .

KPTCL v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 587 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 10(10A): Commutation of pension -Employees of statutory corporations cannot be regarded as employees of State or Central Government and exemption is not available , however as the assessee was under bonafide belief and discharged its obligation u/s 192 , proceedings u/s 201(1), 201(IA) were quashed [ S.192, 201(1), 201(IA) ]

Moser Baer India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 522 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Provisions for bad and doubtful debts – In view of retrospective amendment made by Finance Act, 2009, provisions for bad and doubtful debts being ascertained liability are not required to be added in matter of computation

Moser Baer India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 522 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.92C: Transfer pricing- Foreign AE could be a tested party, provided complete financials of said AE along with complete financials of relevant comparables required to benchmark international transaction were made available before TPO, matter remanded .Transaction with AE being higher than ALP, no ALP adjustment could be made matter remanded.

Jay Shree Industries Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 170 ITD 479 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 80IE : Undertakings – North – Eastern States – ‘initial assessment year’ would be year in which substantial expansion is completed by assessee which would enable it to generate revenue- Denial of exemption is held to be not justified .