Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sunita Gadde (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 211 TTJ 898 / 88 ITR 21 (SN)/ 202 DTR 51 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Information received from seller-Material Collected at the back of the assessee-Opportunity of cross examination was not provided-Addition cannot be made. [S. 131 147, 148]

Eversafe Securities (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 642 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Jurisdiction-Order passed without issuing notice under section 143 (2)-Assessment is without jurisdiction and null and void. [S. 68, 143 (3)]

DCIT v. Indian Oil Petronas (P.) Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 490/ 214 TTJ 123 / 207 DTR 131 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 115-O : Domestic companies-Tax on distributed profits-Rate in force-Non-Resident share holders-Double Taxation avoidance agreement-DTAA being more beneficial to assessee would be applicable over rate specified in section 115-O-Matter remanded. [S. 2(37A), 4, 90]

GO Airlines (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 430 / 198 DTR 113 / 209 TTJ 731 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Business loss-Depreciation loss-Available for reduction from book profits till it was wiped off. [S. 28(i), 32, 72]

Tata Coffee Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 128 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Reimbursement of expenses-Mark up was directed to be re-examined.

Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 183 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Interest free advance-LIBOR rate and not domestic lending rate-Loan to AE-International Transaction. [S. 92B]

Gemological Institute of America Inc. v. ACIT(IT) (2021) 189 ITD 254 / 88 ITR 505 / 211 TTJ 521 / 201 DTR 321 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Secondary adjustment cannot be rejected-Matter was remanded for verification of factual elements. [S. 92CE(1)]

DCIT v. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TPO cannot decide as to whether expenses incurred by assessee were necessary for business purpose of assessee or not. [S. 37 (1)]

DCIT v. Lucent Diamond (2021) 189 ITD 581 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Import and export of diamonds-Purchase invoices, ledger account, payment details and PAN was produced-Restricting 6% of alleged bogus purchases is held to be justified-Disallowance of expenses was held to be not justified. [S. 132, 143(3)]

Uma Agrawal (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 659 / 212 TTJ 427/ 203 DTR 404 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Demonetization-Exempt limit of income-tax-Housewife-Bank deposits were made was less than 2.50 lakhs-No addition can be made.