Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. v .ACIT (2020)81 ITR 94 (SN) ( Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -A debt-free company — No interest paid to creditor or supplier nor interest earned from unrelated party- Adjustment of interest is held to be not warranted .

American Express (I) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT v (2020) 81 ITR 89 (SN) ( Delhi ) (Trib) .

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Information enabled technology services -Comparable-Extraordinary events taking place in relevant period — Excluded from comparable – Interest receivables – No separate adjustment is required – Denial of exemption is not justified [ S. 10A , 92CA ]

Dy. CIT v. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. (2020) 81 ITR 5 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 80IA :Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development-
Generation Of Electricity — Initial assessment year — Not required to notionally reduce losses arising from eligible business in earlier years already set off against other business – Losses arising in eligible business subsequent to earmarking of initial Assessment year to be governed by embargo placed in section 80IA(5) of the Act [ S.70 , 71 ,72 ,80IA(4),80IA(5) ]

Bhagatram v. ACIT (2020) 81 ITR 59 (SN) (SMC) (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases –
Accommodation entries —Trading in gold jewellery – Enhancement by CIT (A) directing to add entire purchases was deleted – Estimate of 10% of bogus purchases Assessing Officer is affirmed . [ S. 132 ]

Pankaj Ladha v. Dy. CIT (2020) 81 ITR 42( SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Silver and jewellery belongs to family members – Declared in the wealth tax return to be considered – Addition is held to be not valid [ S.69A , 132 ]

Virendra Verma v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 16 (SN) ( Delhi) (Trib)

S.68: Cash credits — Balances from earlier years – Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer .

N. S. John v .ITO (2020) 81 ITR 76 (SMC) (SN) ( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Investment in company – Not producing criminal complaint to prove the source – Addition is held to be justified .

Deem Roll Tech Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 81 ITR 82 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Journal entry – Share application money — Cheques neither presented nor encashed in accounting year- Addition cannot be made .

Dy. CIT v. H. B. Associates (2020) 81 ITR 38 (SN) ( Pune) (Trib) (Pune)

S.68: Cash Credits — Unsecured Loans —Banking channels- Subsequently adjusted against booking of flat – Addition is held to be not valid .

Baidya Nath Dey v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 28 ( SN) ( Kol)) (Trib)

S.68: Cash credits — Circuitous cash deposits – Three bank accounts – Salaried employee- Addition was confirmed to the extent of Rs 7 ,38 ,000 ]