Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


K. V. Abdul Azeez v. CIT (2018)404 ITR 288/ 253 Taxman 210/ 168 DTR 74 / 304 CTR 801(Ker)(HC)

S. 153B : Assessment – Search – Time limit – On a remand under S. 263, such assessment would have to be completed only within a reasonable period of time. [ S.153A, 263 ]

Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 253 Taxman 141/172 DTR 46/( 2019) 306 CTR 657 (Raj)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment -Share capital- Bogus accommodation entries – Reassessment was held to be valid [ S. 68 ,143(1),148 ]

Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accounts v. DCIT (2018) 253 Taxman 490 (Guj)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed as the tax effect is less than Rs 1. Crore Dy.CIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accounts ( 2019) 261 Taxman 449/ SLP rejected ( 2019) 266 Taxman 190 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Firm -Partner- Pension paid to retiring partner which was allowed as deduction- Reassessment was held to be not valid [ S. 37(1),148 , 184 ]

Dr. Prabhu Dayal Yadav. v. CIT (2018) 253 Taxman 191 /162 DTR 12 (All) (HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Mere fact that books of account were not supported by vouchers of payments received from patients, same could not be a ground to reject assessee’s books of account and to make addition on estimate basis

Preeti Mohan. v. UOI (2018) 253 Taxman 396 (Mad) (HC)

S. 139AA: Return of income – Quoting of Aadhaar Number – Compulsory for assessees to give their Aadhaar Number while filing their income tax return.

Babulal Mohanraj Jain v. CBDT (2018) 253 Taxman 170 /164 DTR 209/ 302 CTR 463 (Bom) (HC)

S.139: Return- Delay in filing of return- Reasonable cause- Court directed the CBDT to reconsider the application for condonation of delay as the as the circumstances were beyond the control of the assessee. [ S.80AC, 80IB, 119 ]

PCIT v. WSP Consultants India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 253 Taxman 58 (Delhi) (HC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing- Any inclusion or exclusion of comparables per se cannot be treated as a question of law unless it is demonstrated that the Tribunal has taken in to irrelevant consideration .[ S.260A]

PCIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services (P.) Ltd. (2018) 253 Taxman 498/ 166 DTR 358 / 303 CTR 284/ (2019) 416 ITR 54 (Delhi) (HC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing- Broad threshold figure of 25 per cent RPT in case of comparables is essential- Brand does play its own role in price or cost determination and, they would not be comparable to each other

Dabur India Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 253 Taxman 129 / 301 CTR 367/162 DTR 297 (Delhi)

CIT v. Dilip Singh. (2018) 253 Taxman 41 / 300 CTR 184 /161 DTR 97 (Cal)(HC)

S. 92B : Transfer pricing – International transaction- Royalty arising out of use of brand name had to be treated as an international transaction.[ S.92C ]

CIT v. Dilip Singh. (2018) 405 ITR 399/253 Taxman 41 / 300 CTR 184 /161 DTR 97 (Cal)(HC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account –Receipts of jewellery in the name of assessee which was found in the course of search was from the disclosed income of the wife accordingly deletion of addition was held to be justified [ S.132B, 158B, 292C ]