S.92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Comparable – No question of law – Appeal is not maintainable .[ S.260A ]
CIT v. Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery P. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 359 (Karn)(HC)S.92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Comparable – No question of law – Appeal is not maintainable .[ S.260A ]
CIT v. Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery P. Ltd. (2019) 412 ITR 359 (Karn)(HC)S.69C: Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Sundry creditors – Only profit element embedded in credits can be taxed- Restricted to 25% of element of profit . [ S.37 , 69A ]
xCIT v. Nandkishor Huaschand Jalan. (2019) 412 ITR 357 (Guj)(HC)S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment -Interest payable to Banks — Conversion of unpaid interest into funded interest Loan- Not allowable as deduction- Explanation 3C to section 43B inserted with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989 by the Finance Act , 2006 .
CIT v. Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. ( 2019) 412 ITR 397 / 177 DTR 121/ 262 Taxman 93 / 308 CTR 309(SC) Editorial: Decision in CIT v Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. (2019] 412 ITR 398 (Guj) (HC) is reversed .S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Purchases were supported by dealers invoice along with valid transit receipt , receipt documents etc – Disallowance is held to be not justified .[ R.6DD ]
M. K. Agrotech P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 412 ITR 351/ 176 DTR 294/ 308 CTR 275 (Karn)(HC)S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Application of income- Excess of expenditure of earlier years adjusted against income of relevant accounting year, amounts to application of income — adjustment will have to be excluded from the income of the trust under section 11(1)(a) .[ S.11(1)(a),12 ]
CIT v. Chalassani Education Trust. (2019) 412 ITR 343 (Karn)(HC)S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Strictures -The Court deprecated the tendency of the Revenue to file appeals even though the issues were ex facie covered by the decisions of the jurisdictional High Courts or even the Supreme Court of India – Copy of order is forwarded to Chief Commissioner , CBDT , Mimistry of Finance , Department of revenue for need ful action – Interest income- Held to be not assessable .[ S.4 ]
PCIT v. Bank Note Paper Mill India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 429 /( 2019) 412 ITR 415 (Karn ) ( HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Quantum addition was not challenged – Receipts were not offered to tax in the return-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.
Inspectorate Singapore Pte. Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 53 (UO) (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Difference in TDS- Agreed addition- levy of penalty is held to be not valid.
Heritage Marketing v. ITO (2018) 171 DTR 402 / 196 TTJ 379 (Chd.)(Trib.)S. 234B : Interest-Advance tax–Interest is to be computed with respect to total income determined in regular assessment as per definition of assessed tax given in S. 234B of the Act- Matter remanded.[S. 140A]
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 148 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 145A : Method of accounting–Valuation–Advance Custom duty paid adjusted against excise duty payable–Allowable as deduction- Directed the AO to recast profit and loss account under inclusive method. [S. 43B]
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 148 (Delhi)(Trib.)