Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Devansh Export v. ACIT( 2018) 196 TTJ 665 /( 2019) 176 DTR 17(Kol)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 147: Reassessment – The information given by DIT (Inv) can only be a basis to ignite/ trigger “reason to suspect”. The AO has to carry out further examination to convert the “reason to suspect” into “reason to believe”. If the AO acts on borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind, the reopening is void .[ S. 92, 148 ]

Sudhir Menon v. ACIT ( 2018) 67 ITR 86(SN) (Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 143(2): Assessment –Notice- Additional ground- Jurisdictional issue –Admitted – A notice u/s 143(2) issued by the AO before the assessee files a return of income has no meaning- If no fresh notice is issued after the assessee files a return, the AO has no jurisdiction to pass the reassessment order and the same has to be quashed [ S.147, 148 , 254(1)]

ITO v. Surendra R. Kharbanda (Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 80IC: Special category States – Manufacture of watches -Assembling will amount to manufacture – Allegation of the Dept that manufacture is not possible as the assessee has less number of employees, no sophisticated machinery and less electricity consumption cannot be the ground to reject the claim of the assessee.

Sunshine Metal & Alloys v. ITO (Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits- Bogus share capital-If (a) the assessee has furnished the Name, Address, PAN no and Share Application Form to prove that the shares were allotted to the applicants and (b) the bank statement show that money was received through banking channels and there were no immediate withdrawals to suggest that the share application amounts have been returned back to these parties in cash, it means the assessee has discharged the primary onus cast upon it to prove the identity, capacity and genuineness of transactions- Additions can not be made as cash credits.

DCIT v. Moni Kumar Subha (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatoline.org

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- Stamp valuation- Form v/s Substance -Security deposit was rightly apportioned between short term and long term capital gains- Interest-free security deposit cannot be treated as ‘full value of consideration- The amendment to include assessable value as full value consideration was inserted w.e.f. 01/10/2009 and, thus, the value assessable as per stamp value authority cannot be applied for taking full value consideration of the property for the year under consideration. Accordingly the question of referring the matter to the Valuation Officer in terms of section 50C(2) also does not arise. [S. 2(14, 45 ]

DCIT v. Moni Kumar Subha (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatoline.org

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Notional interest on interest-free security deposit cannot be added while computing annual value [ S.23(1) (b), 23(1)(ii) ]

ITO v. Urban Improvement Trust (2018) 409 ITR 1/ 259 Taxman 61 / 171 DTR 81/ 305 CTR 121 (SC),www.itatonline.org/Editorial: From the Judgments , CIT v. Urban Improvement Trust , Alwar ( 2018) 171 DTR 98 / 305 CTR 138( Raj) (HC)/ Urban Improvement Trust , Kota v. ITO ( 2018) 171 DTR 98/ 305 CTR 138 ( Raj) (HC)/ Urban Improvement Trust , Kota v. ITO ( 2018) 171 DTR 109/ 305 CTR 149 ( Raj) (HC)

S. 10(20) :Local authority – Urban improvement Trust constituted under Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act , 1959 is not local authority , hence not entitle to exemption – The functional test” as laid down in UOI v. R.C. Jain, (1981) 2 SCC 308 is not applicable after amendment of section 10 (20) of the Act by Finance Act , 2002 . [ S.10(20A ]

DCIT v. Moni Kumar Subha (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatoline.org

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Merely because the shares are held by the minor son of the assessee and the loan is received by the assessee it cannot be established that assessee is the beneficial shareholder of 10% or more –Loan cannot be assessed as deemed dividend- Alternatively the amount received was advance rent in the Course of business hence cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

Yatin Prakash Telang v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 705/ 170 DTR 329/195 TTJ 892 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence-Purchased new residential house before sale of another residential house owned -Investment is made within the stipulated period and the investment was more than the capital gains earned- Entitle to exemption. [ S.45,54F ]

Dy. CIT v. UMIL Share & Stock Broking Services Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 713 / 170 DTR 441/ 196 TTJ 91(Kol)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains –Long term capital loss- Shares sold to a group concern in off market transaction at same price as was quoted on stock exchange on relevant date, loss incurred from said sale transactions was to be allowed as long term capital loss.[S.2(29B ]