Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Firemenich Aromatics (I) (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 43 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparison-Data should be of same financial year-Delay of 47 days in filing appeal by the revenue was condoned. [S. 253]

ACIT v. Spentex Industries Ltd. (2020) 184 ITD 695 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92B : Transfer pricing-Corporate guarantee-No material to prove cost in providing corporate guarantee-Addition is held to be not valid-Finance Act, 2012, amendment is prospective. [S. 92C]

Soveresign Safeship Management (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 184 ITD 806 / 195 DTR 337 / 208 TTJ 754 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92A : Transfer pricing-Associated enterprises-Advance of loan-None of said two entities had individually advanced loan of more than 51 per cent of book value of total assets of assessee-Entities could not be deemed as AEs of assessee. [S. 92A(2)(c), 92C]

Mantola Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 184 ITD 136 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies-Source of investment by co-operative society-Revenue is not required to look to nature of investment whether it is from surplus funds or otherwise. [S. 80P(2)]

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 621 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Deduction could not be restricted proportionately to split/broken period when undertaking undertook substantial expansion and it was eligible on basis of annual profit.

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 8 / 207 TTJ 143 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings-Addition made towards suppressed production-Entitle to deduction. [Form 10CCB]

Zaveri & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 777 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Wind Mill-loss prior to initial assessment year which had already been set off, could not be brought forward and adjusted against profits of eligible business. [S. 80IA(5)]

Jaee Vishwas Joshi v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 112 / 2021) 211 TTJ 311 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Business counselling charges-Payment to bogus companies-Reassessment is held to be justified-Disallowance is held to be justified. [S.143(1), 147, 148]

DCIT v. Gulshan Chemicals Ltd. (2020) 184 ITD 71 / 208 TTJ 1053 / (2021) 197 DTR 274 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Purchase of raw material-purported excess money had been received back-Deletion of addition is held to be valid.

N. Roja v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 329 / 196 DTR 134 / 208 TTJ 603 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Search-Jewellery to extent stated in CBDT Instruction No. 1916, dated 11-5-1996 stands explained. [S. 132]