Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


BMC Software India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 57 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Software consultancy-Functional similarity-Company engaged in providing both software products as well as software development services could not be accepted as comparable-A company engaged in providing information services could not be accepted as comparable-A company providing information services could not be accepted as comparable.

Jaipur Boutique Carpet v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 305 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained moneys-Loan-Confirmation from such two persons from whom money was received as ‘temporary loan’ was not produced-Matter remanded back to decide afresh. [S. 254(1)]

Ahmed Shareef v. Dy. CIT (2021) 189 ITD 522 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Immoveable property-Valuation report-Difference was less than 15 %-Addition is held to be not valid. [S. 132, 153C]

Sanjay Sultania v. ITO (2021) 212 TTJ 539 / 202 DTR 323 (SMC) (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Income from undisclosed sources-Survey-Addition based on statement given to survey team on documents found indicating receipt of large amounts-No retraction-Addition upheld. [S. 133A]

Moongipa Dev. & Inf. Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 388 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital-Submitted share application form, copy of share certificates, copy of board resolution, certificate of incorporation etc. with respect to all investor and all investor entities had sufficient net worth to make investment, additions as unexplained cash credit was unjustified. [S. 147, 148]

Jayant Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 321 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-various evidences filed including financial statement of creditor to prove his identity and creditworthiness and genuineness of transactions, merely for reason that loan were received in cash was unjustified.

Ancon Chemplast P. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 156 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Addition is not sustainable where the assessee-company has been able to prove the identity of the investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. [S. 69C, 147, 148]

ACIT v. Shri Karsangiri Buddhgiri Goswami (Diamond Petroleum) (2021) 189 ITD 227 / 213 TTJ 449/ 205 DTR 324 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Unexplained investments-Seizure of Banakhat duly signed by the assessee-Addition U/s 68 on account of non-availability of ROI and Bank account of lender-Held that AO has not brought any material or evidence to disprove the genuineness of information submitted by the assessee-The appeal of the revenue is dismissed. [S. 69, 153A]

Krishnappa Jayaramaiah v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 15 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Exemptions-investment in house property in name of assessee’s widowed daughter was allowable-Direct nexus between sale consideration received and investment in house property-Entitle to exemption. [S. 45]

Sitaram Pahariya (HUF) v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 239 / 212 TTJ 273 / 203 DTR 137 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-HUF-Entitle for exemption. [S. 2(31), 45]