S. 244 :Refunds – Interest on refunds – Time of accrual — Assessment on 22-3-1991 — Interest on refund granted on 9-10-2002 — Interest is not assessable in Assessment Year.
CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/ 171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)S. 244 :Refunds – Interest on refunds – Time of accrual — Assessment on 22-3-1991 — Interest on refund granted on 9-10-2002 — Interest is not assessable in Assessment Year.
CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/ 171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay- Pendency of appeal- Circular by Central Board Of Direct Taxes that 15 Per Cent. of disputed demand to be deposited for stay — Permits decrease or even increase in percentage of disputed tax demand to be deposited — Requirement reduced to 7.5 Per Cent. On Further condition of security for remaining tax in dispute .
Ashokbhai Jagubhai Kheni v. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 179 / 258 Taxman 275 (Guj) (HC)S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay- Interest is automatic — Genuine belief that tax was not deductible at source is not relevant – Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption- Failure to deduct tax and deposit to Govt interest can be Levied- Unlike S.221 , S. 201(1A) is not hedged in by any requirement such as good faith or wilful default. Therefore, for levying interest, mens rea or wilful conduct is wholly irrelevant.[ S. 15, 10(14) , 17 , 192 , 221 ]
Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)S. 158BC : Block assessment -Undisclosed income — Amount surrendered in the course of survey- Merely on the basis of statement in the course of search or survey addition cannot be made, if the assesseee is able to explain the differences- Actual concealment was less than the amount surrendered -Deletion on the basis of explanation is held to be valid . [ S. 132,133A ]
CIT v. S. K. D. New Standard Coaching Institute (2018) 407 ITR 529 (All) (HC)S.147:Reassessment —Subsequent receipt of tax evasion report from Investigation Wing of Income-Tax Department — Notice After Considering Report —Notice is valid – Error in name of the assessee in notice – Reply by assessee- Human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid and no prejudice had been caused- No prejudice to the assessee – Notice cannot be invalidated [ S. 143(1), 148, 292B ]
Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) (HC)S.147: Reassessment — Client code modification -Information from investigation wing regarding evasion of tax by assessee —Notice is held to be valid .[ S. 133A,148 ]
Rakesh Gupta v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 213 / 303 CTR 670/167 DTR 265/101 CCH 318 (P&H) (HC)S.144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Transfer Pricing Officer – Draft assessment order- Reference to TPO – Failure to comply with statutory requirement under S.144C, defects cannot be cured by issuing corrigendum – Order of assessment is held to be void . [S.92CA, 143(3), 292B ]
ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd ( 2018) 407 ITR 642 / 304 CTR 149( Mad) (HC) Editorial: Decision of the single judge in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 / 270 CTR 505 / 225 Taxman 35 (Mad.)(HC) is affirmed .S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Difference between Knowledge process outsourcing and business process outsourcing- The conclusion of the Tribunal was justified and on facts the Tribunal was correct in excluding the comparable companies- Explanation to S. 92B By Finance Act, 2012 — Delay in realisation of trade debt — Transfer pricing provisions is applicable [ S.92B ]
PCIT v. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India P. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 450/304 CTR 113 / 169 DTR 113 //96 taxmann.com 237(Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India P. Ltd v.PCIT ( 2019) 261 Taxman 451 (SC)S. 92A : Transfer pricing – Associated enterprises -Supplier of assessee is not manufacturer — Assessee and supplier Partnership is not controlled by individuals — Neither of Firms holding 10 Per Cent. interest in each other- Not associated enterprises .[ S.92C ]
CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 407 ITR 639 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 406 ITR 37 ( St)S. 80HH :Newly established industrial undertakings – Back ward areas –Processing of cashew nuts in own factory and Industrial undertaking of sister concerns in backward areas —Entitle to deduction .
CIT v. R. Prakash, Dhanya Foods. (2018) 405 ITR 261/ 304 CTR 333/ 167 DTR 229 (Ker) (HC)