S. 32 : Depreciation–Survey–Statement on oath-Merely on the basis of statement made in the course of survey-Depreciation cannot be disallowed. [S. 133A]
Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 163 /203 TTJ 129 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 32 : Depreciation–Survey–Statement on oath-Merely on the basis of statement made in the course of survey-Depreciation cannot be disallowed. [S. 133A]
Shree Rama Multi-Tech Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 163 /203 TTJ 129 (Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 32 : Depreciation–Business of transportation-Rural marketing promotions, Road shows, display advertising etc-Not entitle to higher rate of depreciation at 30%-Vehicles are used by the assessee for its own business and not carrying on transpiration– Entitle depreciation @ 15 % only.
Rural Communication and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 180 ITD 672 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income – Owns funds were more than investments-No disallowance of interest-Indirect administrative expenditure of 5% of average investment is held to be justified. [R. 8D]
Agrasen Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 197/ 203 TTJ 498 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services–Taxable at 10%-DTAA-India-Switzerland [Art.5(2) (1), 12(2)]
AGT International Gmbh v. Dy.CIT (2020) 186 DTR 193 / 203 TTJ 793 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Apportionment of income-MAP proceedings– Appropriate to adopt 7.5 % as adjusted commercial linehaul charges (CLC) / total linehaul charges (TLC) ratio for computing taxable income-DTAA-India-USA. [Art. 8]
Federal Express Corporation v. Dy.CIT (IT) (2020) 186 DTR 209/ 203 TTJ 984 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection–Cannot be considered as constituting Agency PE of that assessee-DTAA-India–Mauritius. [Art. 5(5), 8]
ARC Line (Mauritius) v. Dy.CIT (IT) 2020) 180 DTR 659 (Mum.) (Trib.).S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions–Compounding–Review–Compounding fees was levied 5% as treating the same as second application–Review petition was dismissed. [S. 201(1), 276B, 279(2), CPC, S. 114]
PEB Steel LLoyd (India) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 29/ 185 DTR 233/ 313 CTR 200 (MP) (HC) PEB Steel LLoyd (India) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)423 ITR 29 / 185 DTR 240 / 313 CTR 207(MP) (HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Capital gains-Merely because claim is not accepted levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 45, 54EC]
CIT v. BharatkumarManeklal Parikh (2020) 185 DTR 77 (Bom.)(HC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Issue not contested cannot be agitated before the High Court. [S. 37(1)]
PCIT v. Merck Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 401 / 312 CTR 242/ 275 Taxman 181/ ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 596 (Bom.) (HC)S. 245D : Settlement Commission–Full and true disclosure– Additional income disclosed–Justified in holding that there was a full and true disclosure-Writ petition of revenue is dismissed . [S. 133A, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]
PCIT v. Shankarlal Nebhumal Uttamchandanni (2020) 186 DTR 169 / 114 taxmann.com 638 /313 CTR 184(Guj.)(HC)