Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


PCIT v. Rahman Exports (P.) Ltd. (2018) 169 ITD 10 (All)( Trib)

S.92C:Transfer pricing –Arm’s length price – Variation in closing stock in order to compute operating cost was not considered hence adjustment was held to be not valid .

Saamag Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 649 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Seized papers- Merely on the basis of seized papers addition cannot be made when the assessee has not purchased any land from persons mentioned in the seized documents [ S. 132 ]

Keshavji Bhuralal Gala v. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 23 /165 DTR 8/ 193 TTJ 227 / 63 ITR 67 (SN)(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 56: Income from other sources – Purchase of property from a company wherein the assessee is also director can not be assessed as income from other sources , as the amendment to assess difference arising out of stamp duty value and actual sale consideration as income in case of sale of property for a consideration less than stamp duty value of property was incorporated into statute by Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1-4-2014[ S. 56(2)(vii) ]

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 168 ITD 631/( 2018)192 TTJ 377 / 164 DTR 145 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 50B : Capital gains – Slump sale –Cost of acquisition- Transfer of its business division to its subsidiary against shares and debentures is not a slump sale but exchange hence provision would not be applied .[ S.2(42C), 45 ]

Vikas Solvextracts (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 ITD 692/192 TTJ 591 / 164 DTR 161 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains – Stock in trade -Transfer of land to developer for construction of commercial complex and letting the flats which it got from developer and offering the income as rental income , subsequent sale of flats was held to be assessable as capital gains and cannot be assessed as business income by applying the provision of S. 45(2) of the Act . [ 28(i), 45(2)]

Saamag Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 649 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits -Repayment of debt to group concern and expenditure was not debited in profit and loss account, addition cannot be made .

DCIT v. Cowtown Land Development (P.) Ltd. (2018) 168 ITD 705 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure –Development rights – Payment to its shareholders for withdrawal of winding up petition against company in order to clear title of property is held to be allowable as business expenditure .

Keshavji Bhuralal Gala v. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 23 /165 DTR 8/ 193 TTJ 227/ 63 ITR 67 (SN) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 28(iv) : Business income – Value of any benefit or perquisites – Converted in to money or not – Purchase of property from a company wherein the assessee is also director can not be assessed as profit and gain of business or profession .

Keshavji Bhuralal Gala v. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 23 /165 DTR 8/ 193 TTJ 227 / 63 ITR 67 (SN)(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 17(2) : Perquisite -Purchase of property from a company wherein the assessee is also director can not be assessed as perquisite in lieu of salary as there was no employer and employee relation ship [ S.17(2)(iii), 50C ]

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 168 ITD 631/( 2018)192 TTJ 377 / 164 DTR 145 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Investments in shares and mutual funds from own funds -Interest expenses cannot be disallowed [ R.8D ]