-
ITAT - Exemption u/s 11 allowed as activities of the trust were directed for promoting its objects of vegetarianism and distribution of Prasadam to the general public to promote Lord Krishna consciousness.
ITO. Vs. Radha Damodar Charitable Trust
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14860 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
ITAT - Evaluation of LNG vaporizers is not FIS under India-US DTAA since US entity did not make available technical knowledge, skill, know-how etc. No disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i).
ACIT. Vs. Petronet LNG Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14859 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - TDS u/s 194H to be deducted on cash discount or collection charges retained by Airline Operators while paying passenger service fees to Airport.
Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14858 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
Transfer Pricing: The "international transaction" as defined in s. 92F(v) has to be a genuine transaction. Transfer pricing provisions do not apply to non-genuine or sham transactions
Mitchell Drilling India Private Limited vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14849 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 92F(v)
-
The CBDT should reconsider the practice of appointing retired revenue officers as panel counsel. While the retired officials have domain expertise and do render assistance, they lack the skill and conduct required to appear as an Advocate. They also lack the objectivity expected from officers of the court. The CBDT could consider holding of a training programme, where leading Advocates could address the domain expert on the ethics, obligation and standard expected of Advocates before they start representing the State. The CBDT should lay down a standard procedure in respect of manner in which the Departmental Officer/ Assessing Officer assist the Counsel for the Revenue while promoting/ protecting Revenue’s cause so that the Revenue’s Counsel are not left to fend for themselves
Pr. CIT. vs. Grasim Industries Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14848 (HC-BOMBAY)
-
ITAT - No disallowance of 'product discounts' as 'capital expenditure' on the ground that selling goods at lower than cost price leads to creation of intangibles and therefore profits foregone in earlier years by selling goods at discount.
Flipkart India Private Limited Vs. Ass. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14843 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
-
S. 147/ 148: In order to constitute "change in opinion", the assessment earlier made must either expressly or by necessary implication have expressed an opinion on the subject matter of reopening. If the assessment order is non-speaking, cryptic or perfunctory in nature, it may be difficult to attribute to the AO any opinion on the questions that are raised in the proposed re-assessment proceedings. The reassessment cannot be struck down as being based on "change of opinion" if the assessment order does not address itself to the aspect sought to be examined in the re-assessment proceedings.
ITO. vs. TechSpan India Private Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14839 (SC) · Sections. 147, 148
-
S. 56: Interest accrued on account of deposit of share application money is not taxable income. Such interest is inextricably linked with the requirement to raise share capital and is thus adjustable towards the expenditures involved for the share issue. The fact that part of the share application money would normally have to be returned to unsuccessful applicants, and therefore, the entire share application money would not ultimately be appropriated by the Company, make no significant difference. The Interest earned from share application money has statutorily required to be kept in separate account and was being adjusted towards the cost of raising share capital
CIT. vs. Shree Rama Multi Tech Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14838 (SC) · Section. 56
-
Law on whether amount received by an employee from redemption of Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) can be assessed as "perquisite" u/s 17(2) (iii) or as "profits of business" u/s 28 (iv) or as "capital gains" (despite no "cost of acquisition") u/s 45 explained. CBDT Circular No. 710 dated 24.07.1995 considered
ACIT. vs. Bharat V. Patel
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14837 (SC)
-
Diversion of income by overriding title: Only income that has actually accrued to the assessee is taxable. What income has really occurred to be decided, not by reference to physical receipt of income, but by the receipt of income in reality. The fact that there is no written agreement to show that the assessee was acting as a broker is not relevant. The relationship of the assessee vis-a-vis others can be inferred from the conduct of the parties
DCIT. vs. T. Jayachandran
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14836 (SC)
-
Bifurcation of lease rentals into interest and loan recovery: An assessee can only be taxed on "real income". The bifurcation of lease rental is not an artificial calculation. Lease equalization is an essential step in the accounting process to ensure that real income from the transaction in the form of revenue receipts only is captured for the purposes of income tax. The Guidance Note issued by the ICAI carries great weight. The method of accounting prescribed in such a Guidance Note, in order to compute real income and offering the same for taxation, cannot be disregarded by the AO unless such action falls within the scope and ambit of S. 145(3) of the IT Act
CIT. vs. Virtual Soft Systems Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14835 (SC)
-
S. 158BD Block Assessment: Although s. 158BD does not speak of ‘recording of reasons’ as postulated in s. 148, but since proceedings u/s 158BD may have monetary implications, such satisfaction must reveal mental and dispassionate thought process of the AO in arriving at a conclusion and must contain reasons which should be the basis of initiating the proceedings u/s 158BD. Notice u/s 158BC issued on the same date to the searched person and the other person is not valid as no reasonable or prudent man can come to the satisfaction that any undisclosed income belongs to the other person unless the seized books of accounts etc are verified. The AO is empowered to issue a second notice u/s 158BD to the other person
Tapan Kumar Dutta vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14834 (SC) · Section. 158BD
-
S. 80-O: Law on meaning of "technical assistance" and when services can be said to have made available "information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill" explained
B. L. Passi vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14833 (SC) · Section. 80-O
-
It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice. A taxing Statute should not be interpreted in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over for the payment of tax on the taxpayer unless the language of the Statute is so compelling that the court has no alternative than to accept it. In a case of reasonable doubt, the construction most beneficial to the taxpayer is to be adopted
Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14809 (SC)
-
Transfer Pricing: Entire law on whether the TPO can sit in judgement over the business model of the assessee and determine the ALP of the transactions with AEs at Nil explained in the context of judgements in Kodak India, Lever India Exports, Cushman and Wakefield, R.A.K. Ceramics & Delloite Consulting
Eaton Fluid Power Limited vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14808 (ITAT-PUNE)
-
S. 56(2)(viia)/ Rule 11UA: The "fair market value" of shares acquired has to be determined by the taking the book values of the underlying assets and not their market values
Minda SM Technocast Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14802 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 56(2)(viia)
-
S. 68 Bogus loans: The assessee is not required to explain the "source of source" prior to insertion of the proviso to s. 68. If the assessee has discharged the primary onus placed upon it u/s 68 by filing confirmation letters, the Affidavits, the full address and pan numbers of the creditors, the Revenue has to proceed against the persons whose source of funds are alleged to be not genuine
Pr. CIT. vs. Veedhata Tower Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14801 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 68
-
Bogus Purchases: The fact that the supplier admitted to issuing bogus bills does not necessarily mean that he had issued accommodation bills to the assessee. There is subtle but very important difference in issuing bogus bills and issuing accommodation bills to a particular party. The difference becomes very important when a supplier in his affidavit admits supply of goods. As far as sales are concerned there is no doubt about the genuineness of such sales. It is also a fact that suppliers were paying VAT and were filing their returns of income. In response to the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) of the Act, the supplier admitted the genuineness of the transaction. Accordingly, the purchases cannot be treated as bogus
Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14787 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
-
S. 147 Reopening: Passing the reassessment order before the expiry of 4 weeks of passing the order of objections renders the reassessment order void. Also, if the reasons state “bogus accommodation entries were provided/taken” and it is not clear whether the assessee has received or provided accommodation entries, it means there is no application of mind by the AO while recording reasons
Meta Plast Engineering P. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14786 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 147
-
S. 9(1)(i)/ 40(a)(i): Entire law on whether commission paid by an Indian entity to foreign agents can be said to accrue in India and whether the assessee is obliged to deduct TDS thereon u/s 195 explained. All relevant judgements and CBDT Circulars Nos.7 dated 22.10.2009, 23 dated 23 July 1969, 163 dated 29th May 1975 and 786 dated 7th February 2000 considered
ACIT. Vs. Manufax (India) S.B.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14785 (ITAT-AGRA) · Sections. 9(1)(i), 40(a)(i)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.