Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Greatship (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 137 / 126 taxmann.com 47 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Corporate guarantee distinct from bank guarantee-Average of guarantee fee paid by assessee cannot be questioned.

Adient India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 212 TTJ 777 / 204 DTR 193 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Bona fide expenditure should be incurred while availing services-Application of benefit test is not warranted-Matter remanded. [S. 254(1)]

Renishaw Metrology Systems Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 236 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Management fee-Documents filed to justify and availment of services have to accept value of management services as claimed by assessee-Functional similarity-Assessee involved in advertising agency, data not available in public domain for comparability of business support system segment of said company, it could not be compared to marketing support service provider-Income from exhibitions and events, should be excluded from comparable list to marketing support service provider.

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]