-
S. 50C is a deeming provision and applies only to the transfer of land or building. It does not apply to the transfer of "booking rights" and to right to purchase flats in a building
Baniara Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15336 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 50C
-
S. 45/ 48: Portfolio Management Scheme (PMS) fees paid by the assessee to the PMS Manager neither falls under the category of transfer fees nor cost of acquisition/improvement. Consequently it is not deductible while computing capital gains from sale of the shares (All judgements referred)
Mateen Pyarali Dholkia vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15335 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 45, 48
-
HC - By the notice under Rule 73, petitioner is not accused of committing any non-bailable offence and the said notice does not give rise to any apprehension of immediate arrest. Dismisses 'anticipatory bail' plea.
M A Zahid Vs. Ass. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15321 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 276C
-
HC - Failure to issue notice u/s. 143(2) would vitiate the reassessment proceedings altogether.
Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15320 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section. 143(2)
-
Difference between "Res Judicata" and "Consistency Principle" explained. While "res judicate" does not apply to income-tax matters, the principles of consistency does. If the Revenue has accepted a practice and consistently applied and followed it, the Revenue is bound by it. The Revenue can change the practice only if there is a change in law or change in facts and not otherwise
PCIT. vs. Quest Investment Advisors Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15319 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the alleged share applicants do not appear before the AO pursuant to the s. 131 summons and the documentation is inadequate, it is a "completely bogus claim". The assessee cannot argue that the AO should have made inquiries from the AO of the share applicants as to their credit-worthiness
J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15318 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section. 68
-
S. 56(2)(viia) is a counter evasion mechanism to prevent laundering of unaccounted income under the garb of gifts. The primary condition for invoking S. 56(2)(viia) is that the asset gifted should become a “capital asset” and property in the hands of recipient. If the assessee-company has purchased shares under a buyback scheme and the said shares are extinguished by writing down the share capital, the shares do not become capital asset of the assessee-company and hence s. 56(2)(viia) cannot be invoked in the hands of the assessee company
Vora Financial Services P. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15317 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 56(2)(viia)
-
S. 2(42C)/ 50B: A transaction by which an undertaking is transferred in consideration of the allottment of shares is an "exchange" and not a "sale". The fact that the agreement refers to the parties as "seller" and "purchaser" is irrelevant. S. 2(42C)/ 50B apply only to "sale" and not to "exchange". Entire law on "estoppel" explained. As there is no estoppel against a statute, an assessee is entitled to raise the claim regarding non-taxability at any stage of the proceedings
Oricon Enterprises Limited vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15303 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 2(42C), 50B
-
S. 10(20): Law on whether an industrial township referred to in proviso to Article 243Q is equivalent to a "municipality" and a "local authority" explained. Law on interpretation of statutes as to the scope of an "Explanation" and "Proviso" explained. There is no concept of "equity" or "presumption" or "intendment" in a taxing statute. Only the language has to be seen
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) vs. CCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15302 (SC) · Section. 10(20)
-
S. 9/ 195(1) TDS: Law on whether commision paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India accrues in India and whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS thereon explained (All judgements referred)
DCIT. vs. Sterling Ornaments (P) Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15301 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections. 9, 95(1)
-
SC - No exemption u/s. 10(20) to NOIDA constituted under UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 since it is not ‘local authority’.
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. CCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15296 (SC) · Section. 10(20)
-
HC - Exemption u/s Sec 10B available on deemed exports.
International Stones India Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15295 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 10B
-
S. 69 Bogus Purchases: Purchases cannot be treated as Bogus if (a) they are duly supported by bills, (b) all payments are made by account payee cheques, (c) the supplier has confirmed the transactions, (d) there is no evidence to show that the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted & (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon
PCIT. Vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15292 (SC) · Section. 69
-
S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: 31000% increase in value of shares over 2 years is highly suspicious but cannot take the place of evidence. The addition cannot be made based on generalizations. Evidence collected from third parties cannot be used against the assessee without giving him a copy & an opportunity to rebut the same
Prakash Chand Bhutoria vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15291 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 68
-
ITAT - Exemption u/s 54 to be allowed in entirety for investing the capital gains in a property, which stood in joint name of assessee, her husband and their son.
Uma Nandwani Vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15284 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 54
-
ITAT - In absence of 'make available' under India-UK DTAA, provision of services in relation to inspection and survey of imported/exported cargo and certifying in relation to the quality and price, are not taxable.
Inspectorate International Ltd. Vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15283 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - An inadvertent mistake in the calculation of income would not be construed as furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment thereof. No penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
B. M. BAGARIA & CO. Vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15282 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section. 271(1)(c)
-
ITAT - No disallowance of FTS u/s 40(a)(i) made to a Swedish entity. Benefit allowed under MFN clause.
M.S.K.Travels & Tours Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15281 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section. 40(a)(i)
-
ITAT - Foreign exchange fluctuation losses arising to PE on account of advance or loan received from HO towards working-capital requirement is allowed u/s 37(1).
Cobra Instalaciones Y Servicios SA Vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15280 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 260A: Entire law on when transfer pricing disputes constitute "substantial questions of law" for challenge in the High Court explained. Transfer Pricing Adjustments on the basis of the comparables are a matter of estimate of broad and fair guess-work of the Authorities based on relevant material. The exercise of fact finding or ‘Arm’s Length Price’ determination or ‘Transfer Pricing Adjustments’ should become final with a quietus at the hands of the final fact finding body, i.e. the Tribunal. The ITAT's findings of fact cannot be challenged in the High Court unless it is shown that the findings are ex-facie perverse and unsustainable and exhibit total non-application of mind by the Tribunal to the relevant facts of the case and evidence before it
PCIT. Vs. Softbrands India P. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15275 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 260A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.