S. 32 – Depreciation –UPS and Date drive part of computer system and eligible for higher rate of depreciation
Eastman Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 32 – Depreciation –UPS and Date drive part of computer system and eligible for higher rate of depreciation
Eastman Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)S. 28(i) : Business loss – Mark to market loss in derivative transactions – derivatives held as stock-in-trade – valued on the principle of cost or market value whichever is lower – Held, allowable.
Edel Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 86 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions – Land and interest free loan given to a trust not registered u/s 12AA – Held, objects of the assessee and the recipient trust were same would not make the latter a registered trust u/s 12AA – Denial of exemption is justified . [S. 11, 12AA]
DIT(E) v. Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvel Raj Education Trust (2018) 66 ITR 3 (SN.) (Chennai.)(Trib.)S. 10A : Free trade zone – Sale by the assessee to HO outside India would amount to Export eligible for deduction u/s 10A of the Act.
Dy. CIT v. Virage Logic International (2018) 63 ITR 10 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib.)S. 4 :Charge of income-tax – Discrepancy in AIR data and Form 26AS – Assessee disputed certain transaction reflected in AIR data but claimed credit of TDS – Held, not permissible – Held, AO to verify whether credit of TDS wrongly taken and whether the income does not belong to the assessee. [ Form 26AS]
Edel Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 86 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Third party statement not provided to the assessee, during revisional proceedings, basis which fresh enquired directed – Order is Invalid and remanded to the CIT for providing material and hearing objections.
Humboldt Wedag India (P) Ltd v CIT (2018) 305 CTR 452 / 167 DTR 241 (Delhi)(HC)S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Notice of motion for disposal of appeal vis-a-vis pendency of appeal in the first round – Directions sought –To decide the second round of appeal basis decisions rendered by various Courts cannot be granted as the second round of proceedings have not yet culminated in a final order of the Tribunal. [ S.254 (1)]
Johnson & Johnson (P) Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 168 DTR 292 (Bom.)(HC)S. 245HA : Settlement Commission – Income-tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) went wrong in rejecting assessee’s settlement petition treating it as having abated under S. 245A(1)(iv) without any finding that the delay was attributable to the assessee [ S.245C, 245D]
M. Kantilal & Co. v. ITSC (2018)256 Taxman 216/ ( 2019) 411 ITR 542 (Guj)(HC.) M. Kantilal & Exports .v. ITSC (2018) 256 Taxman 221/( 2019) 411 ITR 542 (Guj) (HC)S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Filed before wrong authority-Appeal for AY 2015-16 was filed before wrong authority i.e. Ayakar Sevakendra [ASK] instead of CIT(A)] – CIT(A) to entertain the appeal filed (on merits) along with stay applications and pass orders on stay – Demand to be kept in abeyance till CIT(A) passed the relevant orders- Matter remanded.
G.R.D. Trust v. DCIT (E) (2018) 255 Taxman 121 (Mad.)(HC)S. 194H : Deduction at source –Commission or discount to distributors – Arrangement between assessee company and the distributor that of principal to principal basis- Amount receivable from distributor was adjusted / reduced and no commission was paid as such – Regarding MRP – restrictions on distributor (price fixed and expenses to be managed by distributor)- not to decide the relationship of principal and agent – Provisions of S.. 194H were not applicable and proceedings under S.. 201 or S.. 201(1A) are misconceived.[ S.201, 201(IA)]
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2018)402 ITR 539 /303 CTR 13 (Raj) (HC).