-
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
-
S. 68 Bogus share capital: If the AO has remained silent with folded hands and has not made any independent inquiry from the concerned AO of share holder company and has not controverted the evidence produced by the assessee, that itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. The fact that there is no personal appearance from director of said cash creditor (share holder) does not mean that an adverse inference u/s 68 can be drawn by the AO without the AO discharging the secondary burden lying upon him (All imp judgements referred)
Moti Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15274 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 68
-
Condonation of delay (92 days): The AO was negligent in filing the remand report before the CIT(A). The same attitude has continued at the stage of filing appeal to the ITAT. The excuse that the appeal was not filed due to the AO being busy with time barring assessment is not acceptable. The AO deliberately overlooked the impugned order and did not file appeal before the Tribunal within the period of limitation. Even the authorization by Pr. CIT to file the appeal has been granted after the period of limitation. Hence sufficient cause is not shown
ITO. Vs. Gisil Designs Pvt. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15273 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
HC - Transfer of trademark with itself would transfer not only the emblem or figure, but also the reputation of business and therefore a separate deed for transferring goodwill, would make no difference. Capital gains addition on undervalued goodwill deleted.
CIT. Vs. Bisleri International Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15268 (HC-GUJARAT)
-
HC -Once a statute declares a transfer to be void, the Court cannot impose a burden upon the Revenue to go to the Civil Court and seek a declaration.
Shriya Bhupal Vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15259 (HC-AP) · Section. 281
-
S. 90(2) DTAA: The failure to submit a 'Tax Residency Certificate' (TRC) as required by s. 90(4) is not a bar to the grant of benefits under the DTAA. However, the assessee is required to produce reasonable evidence of the entitlement of the foreign entity to benefits under the DTAA
Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15258 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 90(2)
-
S. 139(5): There is no bar / restriction that an assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). A revised return of income can be filed even in course of the assessment proceedings provided the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is available. The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee’s legitimate claim by raising technical objection
Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15257 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 139(5)
-
S. 260A: The time limit for filing an appeal to the High Court begins from the date of receipt of the order by the officer entitled to file the appeal. The fact that the ITAT may have dispatched the order earlier is not relevant. The fact that the officer may be aware of the ITAT's order owing to collateral proceedings is also not relevant
DIT (IT) vs. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15256 (HC-UTTARAKHAND) · Section. 260A
-
HC - Eexpenses incurred on abandoned project even from capital account is revenue in nature as the venture did not fructify.
Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15255 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Addition to be sustained which is based on 'window-dressed' financials prepared for availing bank loan and certified by Chartered Accountant in Form 3CB.
Binod Kumar Agarwala Vs. CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15254 (HC-CALCUTTA)
-
ITAT - Sec. 90(4), in the absence of a non-obstante clause, cannot be construed as a limitation to the treaty superiority u/s. 90(2) over domestic law. Therefore, mere non-furnishing of Tax Residency Certificate cannot be treated as a trigger to disentitle the India-US DTAA benefits.
Skaps Industries India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15246 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections. 90(4)
-
HC - AO is required to pass speaking order to dispose off assessee’s objections to re-opening proceedings u/s 147 in view of the directions of SC.
K. Velayutham Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15240 (HC-MADRAS)
-
ITAT - No addition u/s 68 on account of share premium received by assessee-company.
Vidya Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15239 (ITAT-DELHI)
-
ITAT - Retrospective registration u/s 12A granted to university on revenue’s failure to dispose application within the period of 6 months.
Visvesvaraya Technological University Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15238 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 12A
-
ITAT - Gains arising on sale of shares by NRI through NRI-PIS SBI account as per FEMA Regulations, is chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’ and not under 'business income'.
Mulshankar Saburbhai Panchal vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15237 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
-
ITAT - The transaction could not be treated as trade advance as such penalty levied on film distributor for accepting / repaying booking advance in cash.
Topaz Films vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15236 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 271D/E
-
ITAT - There is no bar / restriction in the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act that the assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act.
Mahesh H. Hinduja vs. DCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15235 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 139(5)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.