Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Prasidh Leasing Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 129 / 301 CTR 526 /163 DTR 475 /254 Taxman 142 (Delhi) (HC)

S.2(22)(e ): Deemed dividend- Loan to shareholder — Finding that loan was not trading transaction therefore assessable as deemed dividend .

CIT v Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 345/163 DTR 456 /301 CTR 591/ 253 Taxman 32 (Mad) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price –It would be impossible to find comparable with all similarities including the similarity of turnover- A functionally similar company cannot be excluded as comparable only on ground that company had a higher turnover .

CIT v. Makwana Brothers & Co. (HWP) (2018) 161 DTR 289 (Bom) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Project containing commercial units to the extent permitted by rules and regulation is allowable as deduction. Tribunal is justified in allowing partial deduction only in respect of building completed.

CIT v Shipra Estate Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 332 /301 CTR 34 (All) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects -Commencement of construction before 1-10-1998- If either the development or the construction starts before the specified date, the benefit of deduction is not allowable . [ S.80IA(5)]

CIT v Russian Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 300 CTR 501 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Claridges Hotels ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 300 CTR 501 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application – The assessees has filed balance sheet confirmation etc, addition cannot be made merely on suspicion , if AO has any doubt he should make enquiry with lenders bank etc .

CIT v Narinderjit Singh (2018) 161 DTR 200 / 300 CTR 217 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37 (1) : Business expenditure – Provision for deficiency in service – Ascertained liability – Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation -Addition cannot be made. [ S.145 ]

CIT v Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 595/ 162 DTR 281/ 301 CTR 552/ 253 Taxman 292 (Ker) ( HC)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Trade discount – Agents’ deposit – Regular business transactions cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

Promain Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 188 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Statement u/s 132(4) can be used against the assessee only if the statement has relevance to any incriminating document or material found during course of search -Block assessment is held to be bad in law.[ S. 132(4) ]

Prinku landfin (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application-Investors have complied with details u/s 133(6) and the summons was not issued to the investors though request was made by the assessee, addition was held to be not justified . [ S. 131,133(6) ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.147: Reassessment -In the notice u/s 143(2) earlier assessment year is mentioned , the said notice cannot be said to be in valid [ S.143(2), 148 ]