Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Zuberi Engineering Company v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 261 / 175 ITD 557/197 TTJ 659/ 179 DTR 25 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source- Transportation of goods- Requisite information was furnished u/s 194C(6)–No disallowance can be made- Amendment made to section 40(a)(ia) by Finance Act, 2015 is remedial in nature and retrospective in applicability. [S. 194C(6)]

DCIT v. Hydrosult Inc. (2019) 175 ITD 525 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident–Independent personal services outside India-Not chargeable to tax in India –Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA–India–Canada. [S.9(1)(i), Art. 12, 14 ]

National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 601 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Corporate social responsibilities- Held to be allowable – Explanation 2 inserted in section 37(1) with effect from 1-4-2015 is prospective in nature. [S. 35AC, 80G, Companies Act, 2013, S. 135]

Nice Bombay Transport (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (OSD) (2019) 175 ITD 684 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income–Stock in trade–Dividend received incidentally–No disallowance can be made. [R. 8D]

AVM Charities. v. ITO (2019) 175 ITD 654 / 174 DTR 1 / 197 TTJ 513(Chenni)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes–kalyanamandapams, school, health centre and library-Donation to Trust–Predominant activity of assessee society is charity- Eligible for exemption. [S. 11(1), 11(4), 12A]

Process-Cum-Product Development Centre v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 517/ 178 DTR 433 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Skill training programme– Placement activities-Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(15), 10(23C)(iiiab), 12AA]

Shree Ganesh Concast Group of Industries v. Dy.CIT (2018) 195 TTJ 1 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Additional evidence-Ex parte order- Duty of the CIT(A) to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice-Matter remanded to AO. [S.10AA, 80IC, 144, R. 46A(4)]

Jaipur Pensioners Hitkari Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 195 TTJ 112 (UO) (Jaipur ) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment—Difference in form 26AS-Matter remanded. [26AS]

Dy.CIT v. Philips Electronics India Limited. (2018) 196 TTJ 1031 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 9C : Transfer pricing—Functionally Different-Cannot be considered for comparable.

BT E-Serv (India) P. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 195 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-TNMM- Once a comparable was found functionally similar and further authentic and reliable financial data were available relevant to accounting period of assessee then merely comparable had different FY, it could not be excluded- TP adjustment made on outstanding receivable beyond 30 days credit period applying interest rate of 14.88% p.a. and computing interest receivable is held to be justified.