-
S. 23(1)(b), 50C: Law explained on (i) whether notional interest on interest-free security deposit can be added while computing annual value u/s 23(1)(b) & (ii) whether the interest-free security deposit can be treated as 'full value of consideration' u/s 50C as it was included in 'assessable value' by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority
DCIT vs. Moni Kumar Subba
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15916 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 23(1)(b), 50C
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: Failure by the AO to offer cross-examination of the persons whose statements are relied upon means that no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Dept's plea for a remand is not acceptable if the assessee has discharged primary onus (Nova Promoters 342 ITR 169 (Del) & Jansampark Advertising 375 ITR 373 (Del) distinguished). Paradise Inland 98 CCH 0417 followed
Rajat Exports Import (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15901 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
Tax Planning: The fact that the assessee bought and sold shares of groups concerns with a view to book loss and off-set the capital gains from another transaction does not mean that the loss can be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order. The loss cannot be treated as "speculation loss" under the Explanation to s. 73 because the shares were held as investments
ACIT vs. RJ Corp Ltd
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15882 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 194-H TDS: The law in Idea Cellular 325 ITR 148 (Del) that there is a principal-agent relationship between the telecom company and the dealers does not mean that a similar relationship can be inferred between the dealers and the sub-dealers. The incentive paid by the dealers to sub-dealers cannot be equated with commission as stipulated u/s194H and so there is no requirement for deducting TDS
Rakesh Kumar vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15773 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 194-H
-
ITAT - Since the disposal of appeals are delayed on the default of the assessee, it is not a fit case for grant of stay.
QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS QUIPPO TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-19 (1), NEW DELHI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15723 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66778&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 272A(1)(c) Penalty: The argument that penalty u/s 272A(1)(c) can be levied only for non-compliance of s. 131(1) and not s. 131(IA) is not correct because s. 131(1A) has to be read with s. 131(1). On facts, the penalty is justified because the conduct of the assessee is not bona fide. There is deliberate and complete defiance to the summons issued u/s 131(1A)
Young Indian vs. ADIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15713 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 131(1), 272A(1)(c)
-
ITAT - Since assessee was maintaining separate portfolio of scrips as investment and stock-in-trade, claim of long term capital gains with respect to gains arising on sale of certain scrips held as investment allowed.
Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15707 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - The doctrine of res judicata cannot be picked up and abused to shelter any and every wrong doing of the state.
KRANTI DEVI VERSUS ITO – 1 (2), RAMPUR
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15705 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66733&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
ITAT - No penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) for failure to deliver or cause to deliver a copy of the statement (e-TDS return and e-TCS return) within the time since assessee had a reasonable cause for failure to comply with the provisions of Law.
M/S. HARYANA DISTILLERY LIMITED VERSUS THE JCIT, TDS RANGE, KARNAL
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15703 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66747&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 92B Transfer Pricing of AMP Expenditure: In the absence of material to suggest that there was an "arrangement, understanding or action in concert" with respect of the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, the TPO is not justified in coming to the conclusion that there was an international transaction u/s 92B and that the assessee should have recovered an amount from its AE. The request of the Dept for a remand to the TPO is not acceptable. A remand to the assessment stage cannot be a matter of routine; it has to be so done only when there is anything in the facts and circumstances to so warrant or justify
Moet Hennessy India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15671 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 92B
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: A private limited co cannot say that it has no clue about the subscribers to its share capital. The genuineness of the transaction has to be determined by ground realities and not by documents like PAN cards, board resolutions, share certificates etc. Even shell cos have these documents. If the assessee is not able to produce the brains behind these companies and the documents with respect to their financials, the transaction cannot be regarded as genuine
Pee Aar Securities Ltd. vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15666 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 56
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: A private limited co cannot say that it has no clue about the subscribers to its share capital. The genuineness of the transaction has to be determined by ground realities and not by documents like PAN cards, board resolutions, share certificates etc. Even shell cos have these documents. If the assessee is not able to produce the brains behind these companies and the documents with respect to their financials, the transaction cannot be regarded as genuine
Pee Aar Securities Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15649 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68
-
S. 92B Transfer Pricing of AMP Expenditure: In the absence of material to suggest that there was an "arrangement, understanding or action in concert" with respect of the AMP expenditure incurred by the assessee, the TPO is not justified in coming to the conclusion that there was an international transaction u/s 92B and that the assessee should have recovered an amount from its AE. The request of the Dept for a remand to the TPO is not acceptable. A remand to the assessment stage cannot be a matter of routine; it has to be so done only when there is anything in the facts and circumstances to so warrant or justify
Moet Hennessy India Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15648 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 92B
-
S. 68/ 56(2)(viib)/ Rule 11 UA(2)(a): Law on whether share capital/ share premium received by a Company from investors can be assessed as 'unexplained cash credit' explained in the light of judgements of the Courts and Tribunal (All imp judgements referred)
Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15544 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 68, 56(2)(viib)
-
S. 147/ 151: (i) Sanction granted by writing "Yes, I am satisfied" is not sufficient to comply with the requirement of s. 151 because it means that the approving authority has recorded satisfaction in a mechanical manner and without application of mind, (ii) If information is received from investigation wing that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries but no further inquiry was undertaken by AO, said information cannot be said to be tangible material per se and, thus, reassessment on said basis is not justified (All imp judgements referred)
Pioneer Town Planners Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15498 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 151
-
Article 5 Permanent Establishment (PE): The duration of 12 months specified to constitute a PE is activity specific qua the site, construction, assembly or installation project. Preparatory work for tendering of contract cannot be included in the period. The activity qua the project comes to an end when the work gets completed and the responsibility of the contractor with respect to that activity comes to end. Onus is heavily upon the revenue to establish that that assessee’s activity had crossed the threshold period of 12 months
Bellsea Ltd. vs. ADIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15485 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
S. 32: Goodwill is an intangible asset. It falls under the expression "any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" and is eligible for depreciation u/s 32(1)(ii) of the Act. The question whether when a firm has been succeeded by a company and net assets of the firm have vested in the company, there is any transfer of goodwill in the real sense and whether the valuation of goodwill done by the assessee is erroneous has to be decided by the Division Bench
CLC & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15407 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 32
-
S. 147/ 143(2): If the notice u/s 143(2) is issued prior to the furnishing of return by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148, the notice issued u/s 143(2) is not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said notice has to be quashed. S. 292BB does not save the assessment (All judgements considered)
Halcrow Group Ltd vs. ADIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15390 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 147, 143(2)
-
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)
-
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
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.