S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Transportation cost-Not able to establish that cost of transportation in comparable case was lesser than assessee-Adjustment is held to be valid. [S. 260A]
Indian Additives Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 383 (Mad.) (HC)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Transportation cost-Not able to establish that cost of transportation in comparable case was lesser than assessee-Adjustment is held to be valid. [S. 260A]
Indian Additives Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 383 (Mad.) (HC)S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Guarantee commission-Comparison can be made between guarantees issued by commercial Banks as against a corporate guarantee issued by a holding company to benefit of its Associated enterprises-Bench mark fixed by TPO at 3 percent is held to be correct. [S. 92CA(3), R.10B]
CIT (LTU) v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 237 (SC) Editorial : Order in CIT (LTU) v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 439/85 taxmann.com 349 (Bom)(HC) is affirmed partly.S. 80P : Co-operative societies-Primary Agricultural Credit Society –Interests from loans and advances-Matter remanded [S.80P(2)(a)(i), Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.]
PCIT v. Kundayam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2019) 265 Taxman 52 (Mag) (Ker.)(HC)S. 80IB(11A) : Undertaking–Business of processing , preservation and packaging of fruits or vegetables-Business of manufacturing and exporting honey is eligible to claim deduction.
Pioneer Foods & Agro Industries. v. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 53 (Mag)/ 181 DTR 60/ 311 CTR 573 (Bom.)(HC)S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure–Purchase of land jointly with another person-Assessee could be asked to explain only 50% of his share and not source of other person who has invested another 50%.
PCIT v. Bhagwanbhai K. Patel. (2019) 108 taxmann.com 60 / 265 Taxman 233 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. Bhagwanbhai K. Patel. (2019) 265 Taxman 232 (SC)S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Unexplained money –Gifts- Admission by partner- Addition is held to be justified- Rejection of miscellaneous application is held to be justified . [ S. 69A, 132(4), 158BB, 260A ]
Swathi Enterprises. v. DCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 69 (Mag) / 309 CTR 191 / 176 DTR 337 ( 2020) 421 ITR 128(Mad.)(HC)S. 69A : Unexplained money–Cash deposit in savings bank account of Rs. 37 lakhs-Sales as per return was only Rs.9.65 lakhs-Addition is held to be justified.
Krishan Kumar. v. ITO (2019)107 taxmann.com 463 / 265 Taxman 228 (P& H) (HC) Editorial: SLP of asessee is dismissed Krishan Kumar. v. ITO (2019) 265 Taxman 227 (SC)S. 69 : Unexplained investments–Purchase of land-Addition made on the on the basis of statement and agreement of purchase is held to be valid.
Vijay Jain. v. CIT (A) (2019) 265 Taxman 81(Mag.) (MP)(HCS. 69 : Unexplained investments–AO has not established the any such unaccounted investments – Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A]
CIT v. Suvas Hitendra Barot (2019) 108 taxmann.com 58 / 265 Taxman 231 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT v. Suvas Hitendra Barot (2019) 265 Taxman 230 (SC)S. 68 : Cash credits–Share application money-Share premium-Failure to produce share investors-Initial burden is not discharged-Addition is held to be justified.
Royal Rich Developers (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 265 Taxman 99 (Mag.)(HC)