Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Rakesh Ambalal Patel v. ITO (2021) 188 ITD 593 / 212 TTJ 769 / 203 DTR 441 (SMC) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Deemed sale consideration-Not considered while assessing the original assessment-Reassessment is held to be justified. [S. 45, 50C]

Anant Raj Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 321 / 212 TTJ 836 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Depreciable assets-Block of assets-Sale of land-Reassessment is held to be not justified-Depreciation was not claimed-Capital gains cannot be assessed as short term capital gains. [S. 2(11), 32, 45, 50, 148]

ACIT v. G R D Commodities Ltd. (2021) 188 ITD 793 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Derivative losses-Report of Investigation Directorate-Commodities transaction-Reassessment notice was held to be not justified. [S. 4, 143(3), 148, 153A]

Himalaya Drug Company v. ACIT (2021) 188 ITD 547 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Issue of notice of demand along with draft assessment order-Assessment order is not bad in law. [S. 92C]

DCIT v. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. (2021) 188 ITD 834 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Difference in amount of income shown between ITS/26AS viz-a-viz income accounted in books of account-Failure to reconcile the difference-Addition is held to be justified.

Ashoka Construction Company. v. ACIT (2021) 188 ITD 896 (All.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Civil construction business-Difference in 26AS and actual receipts-Matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

Dy. CIT v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2021) 188 ITD 349 / 85 ITR 1 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Provision for diminution in value of investment-Written off in books of account-Addition cannot be made. [S. 115JB(2)(i)]

ACE Infracity Developers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 589 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 115BBE : Tax on specified income-set-off of any loss-Entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under till assessment year 2016-17. [S. 68 to 69D]

Himalaya Drug Company. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 201 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Advertisement expenses-No agreement between AE-Adjustment was deleted-adjustment of royalty was deleted.

Serco BPO (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 19 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Factors to be considered while accepting comparables-Web enabled customer care services, BPO services-Health care BPO services-Revenue filter-Held to be not comparable-Turnover of comparable company was 509 times-Not comparable-High Brand value-Not comparable.