-
S. 92C/ Rule 10B: If the TPO is not satisfied with the assessee's method of benchmarking royalty payments, he should independently benchmark the ALP by adopting any one of the prescribed methods. He cannot determine The ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis. TNMM is the most appropriate method for determining the ALP of royalty and not the CUP method. If an authority like the RBI or Commerce Ministry has approved the rate of royalty, it carries persuasive value that the rate is at ALP
ACIT vs. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19539 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92C
-
S. 276B TDS Prosecution: Mere delay in depositing TDS within the time limit prescribed in S. 200 & Rule 30 is an offense sufficient to attract s. 276B. The fact that the TDS has been deposited subsequently does not absolve the offense. The fact that penalty u/s 221 has not been levied is not relevant because there is an admitted delay in depositing TDS.
Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19538 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections 221, 276B
-
S. 56(2)(viib): The assessee has the option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the 'NAV Method'. The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. He also cannot question the commercial wisdom of the assessee and its investors. The ‘DCF Method’ is based on projections. The AO cannot fault the valuation on the basis that the real figures don't support the projections. Also, the fact that independent investors have invested in the start-up proves that the FMV as determined by the assessee is proper
Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd vs. ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19537 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 6, 68, 69: Law explained on (i) when an Indian citizen or person of Indian origin can be said to have come on "visit to India" so as to qualify as a "Non Resident" u/s 6(6) r.w. CBDT Circular No. 7 of 2003 & (ii) whether amount found deposited in a foreign bank is taxable in India u/s 68 & 69 if the assessee is a "Not Ordinary Resident"
PCIT vs. Binod Kumar Singh
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19536 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 6, 68, 69
-
Assessee nowhere fall within the definition of the Co-operative Bank. The assessee is not a recognized bank in view of the provision of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). There is a difference between the Co-operative bank and in the Credit Co-operative Society. If the Assessee is not in the banking business then in the said circumstances, no doubt the assessee is entitled to raise the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act.
ITO-21 (2) (2), MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. MAHAPALIKA KSHETRA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT, MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19535 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76081&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) has passed the order on the basis of this fact that the assessee has furnished the relevant documents u/s 92D(3) r.w.r. 10D of the Act. The penalty is not laviable specifically on the facts and circumstances when the assessee submitted all the necessary/relevant information to the TPO which was not acceptable if any by TPO.
DCIT-19 (1) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. DAUJI AND CO., MUMBAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19534 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76080&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find that money received in the form of preference share capital has come through FDI route with the proper approval of FIPB and RBI by filing requisite statutory forms and complying with the requisite conditions prescribed thereon.
ITO-15 (2) (2) , MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. LUXORA REALTORS PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19533 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76078&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are in no confusion to hold that there was no infirmity in the exercise done by the Commissioner, Income Tax II purportedly u/s 263 because the provisions of Section 263(c) suitably empowers the Commissioner to pass such order even if any appeal is pending but with a caveat, that the order passed under Section 263 shall govern only such matters which was neither a subject matter nor decided in appeal.
MUNNI RAI VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II PATNA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PATNA.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19532 (HC-PATNA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78966&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the DRP is an order reducing the variation proposed in the draft assessment order dated 25.02.2015. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the DRP exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. In any event, the order passed by the DRP was not impugned before the Tribunal rather what was impugned was the assessment order dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 144C(13) r/w Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider on merits whether the said assessment order was justified or not.
M/S. INDIA TRIMMINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 1, COIMBATORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19531 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78968&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Mere nondisclosure of receipt would not automatically imply escapement of income chargeable to tax from assessment.
The Swastic Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(3)(1) & Ors.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19529 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Since the housing or other activities should be integral part of highway project in order to claim deduction u/s 80IA(4). Therefore, deduction u/s. 80IA(4) to State Corporation undertaking township project is denied.
West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19522 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 80IA(4)
-
Since a flat is sold by company to a director-shareholder, therefore unpaid price of flat will be taxable as deemed dividend.
Bhagavathy Velan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19515 (HC-MADRAS)
-
When a just claim is put forth by a citizen, the State will not plead limitation to defeat it.
Karur Vysya Bank Limited vs. Pr. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19514 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 264
-
S. 40A(9): The provision is not meant to hit genuine expenditure by an employer for the welfare and the benefit of the employees. Even contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds have to be allowed as a deduction if they are genuine in nature
PCIT vs. State Bank Of India
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19513 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
Speculation Loss: Law on when an amendment can be said to be clarificatory/ retrospective explained. The amendment to the Explanation to s. 73 by the Finance (No 2) Act 2014 with effect from 1 April 2015 is not clarificatory or retrospective. Consequently, loss occurred to the assessee as a result of its activity of trading in shares (a loss arising from the business of speculation) is not capable of being set off against the profits which it had earned against the business of futures and options since the latter did not constitute profits and gains of a speculative business
Snowtex Investment Limited vs. PCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19512 (SC)
-
Since Tribunal is the creation of statute/ Constitution, therefore it has the duty to examine the facts and apply correct law without being influenced by threat of contempt posed by both sides.
Wipro Limited vs. Addl. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19511 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Gem grading services provided by GIA India Lab to Indian affiliate will not be regarded as JV-arrangement. Rejects the constitutional plea of PE.
Gemological Institute of America, Inc Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19510 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
For applying provision u/s 56(2)(viib) receipt of share-application money, not share-allotment is relevant.
M/s. Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19509 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
-
Allowed Essar Teleholdings' appeal, holding sale of CCDs to related concern which resulted in a STCL of Rs 69.36 crores could not be construed as a colorable device and the loss was a genuine loss.
M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited Vs ACIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
Entire law explained on (i) whether a litigant is bound by concessions of fact and law made by his Counsel/ Authorized representative during the hearing, (ii) tests to find out whether contract labourers are direct employees or not, (iii) meaning of "control and supervision", (iv) meaning of "master-servant" relationship & (v) when the findings in a judgement can be said to be "perverse" and such that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19501 (SC)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.