S. 80HHC : Export business -Income from job working of machining -Income to be considered as business income.
CIT v. Rambal P. Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 307 (Mad) (HC)S. 80HHC : Export business -Income from job working of machining -Income to be considered as business income.
CIT v. Rambal P. Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 307 (Mad) (HC)S. 68:Cash credits — Source of cash deposit was not explained satisfactorily-Addition was held to be justified .
Ravi Mallick, prop. of Sunkraft designs v. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 250 (P&H) (HC)S.68:Cash credits — Burden of proof — Mere confirmation is not sufficient, identity , creditworthiness and genuineness was not proved – Addition was held to be justified .
Ram Baboo Agrawal v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 198 (All) (HC)S. 45(2) : Capital gains – Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade -Capital gains to be computed on sale up to date of conversion of Land into stock- in-trade and profit on sale of stock in trade to be assessed as business income or loss. Capital gains to be set off against business loss [ S.28(i) ]
CIT v. Essorpe Mills Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 323 (Mad) (HC)S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Professional fees – Failure to deduct tax at source – Disallowance was held to be justified .
Ravi Mallick, prop. of Sunkraft designs v. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 250 (P&H) (HC)S. 10AA : Special economic zones – Industrial undertaking- Investment in Plant and Machinery for new unit was substantial compared to value of machinery shifted — Entitled to exemption.
CIT v. Green Fire Exports. (2018) 404 ITR 266 (Raj) (HC) CIT v. Jagdish Prasad Soni (2018) 404 ITR 266 (Raj) (HC)S. 9(1)(vii):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services – Services of Crew under separate agreement – Matter remanded to Tribunal -DTAA -India- Germany [ S. 10(15A),Art, 111]
DIT (Inv) v. Modiluft Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 228/ 255 Taxman 481/ 169 DTR 289 / 2020) 314 CTR 282(Delhi) (HC)/DIT v. Royal Airways Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 228 / 255 Taxman 481 / 169 DTR 289 / (2020) 314 CTR 282 (Delhi) (HC)S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Capital or revenue —Business of real estate -Compensation received under Arbitration Award is held to be capital receipt .
CIT v. Aeren R Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 318 (Delhi) (HC)S. 282 : Service of notice –Reassessment-Service of notice at the factory premises of the Assessee on the security guard was held to be valid ,though “service” of notice u/s 147/148 is not a mere procedural requirement, but a condition precedent for initiation of proceedings, the service upon a person who was not authorized to receive notice does not render the proceedings null and void if the assessee complied and entered appearance [ S. 148 , 254(1),292B ]
CIT v. Sudev Industries Ltd ( 2018)405 ITR 325 /167 DTR 297/ 256 Taxman 317/ 304 CTR 338 (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed, Sudev Industries Ltd v CIT ( 2018) 259 Taxman 221 ( SC)S. 271(1)(c) Penalty-Concealment -“sale and lease back”- Quantum of revenue appeal was admitted and pending for final hearing – Merely using the words that there is concealment of income and / or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not sufficient. The same should be particularized by the AO with a finding as to what particulars of income has been concealed or what particulars of income are inaccurate. The words ‘concealment’ or giving ‘inaccurate particulars of income’ have to be read strictly before penalty provisions can be invoked. [ S.32]
CIT v. L & T Finance Ltd( 2018) 168 DTR 212 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org