Date: February 21, 2019

Dear Members,

The AIFTP Journal is the mouthpiece of the All India Federation of Tax Practitioners and it is also a source of information for updating our subscribers with the latest developments on Direct and Indirect Taxes.

The unique feature of our Journal is that every quarter, we publish the gist of important case laws reported in more than 30 tax magazines. We publish opinions of eminent professionals, thought provoking speeches of Hon’ble Judges of Apex Court and High Courts, important articles on Direct and Indirect Taxes, articles on Wealth Management and Answers by eminent professionals on various controversial issues. We are sure that in the era of information technology, our journal would definitely help you to update your knowledge on latest case laws and development of law.

The subscription rate was fixed in 2014 and due to increase in cost it is increased marginally in the current year.

Please note that AIFTP Journal subscription for the year 1st April, 2019 to 31st March, 2020 falls due for payment on 1st April, 2019.

Life Member

Members are requested to remit the amount of ₹ 1,000/- for one year or ₹ 2,600/- for three years by Cheque / Demand Draft by 15th April, 2019. You are also requested to fill in all the details in the Renewal Notice.

Non-Member

Non-members are requested to remit the amount of ₹ 1,400/- for one year or ₹ 3,750/- for three years by Cheque / Demand Draft by 15th April, 2019. You are also requested to fill in all the details in the Renewal Notice.

Thanking you, Yours sincerely,
For ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS

CHIRAG S. PAREKH
 Treasurer

Note :

  1. Payment should be made by Account Payee Cheque / Demand Draft in favour of “ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS”

  2. OUTSTATION MEMBERS are requested to send payments only by either at par cheque or Demand Draft payable at Mumbai drawn in favour of “ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS”.

  3. An early payment of the subscription would be highly appreciated.

  4. Please download and send the subscription form from AIFTP’s website duly filled in all respects along with the payment.

  5. Please write your name on the reverse of Cheques / D.D.

Ramesh L. Soni, Advisor

The Honourable Supreme Court of India haspassed a Judgment on 28th February, 2019 in case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), West Bengal vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir & Others [Civil Appeal No 6221 of 2011]. A Bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Naveen Sinha ruled that employers cannot segregate ‘special allowance’ from basic wages for purpose of PF deductions.

The judgment of Supreme Court has to be understood in right perspective and has to be duly implemented. The Judgment of SC has now called a time for employers to do the necessary changes in their salary structure which shall fit in the frame of law. The judgment may also affect the in hand / take home salary of the employees and may also affect the cost & the liability of employer towards PF.

Earlier Senario

There is no law which prescribes any specific salary structure for any industry. There is also no mandatory component for ‘basic salary’. Therefore, it was on the management to derive a salary structure for its employees. The number of allowances, employer can determine was through contract of employment. At the time of appointing the employees and issuing them the appointment letters, employers frequently shown the splitting of their wages into several allowances. The employers had not deeply studied the definition of wages for payment of PF contributions. Some of the common allowances are given below :

  • Special Allowance (without any specialisation),

  • City Compensation Allowance (shown in salary at rural areas),

  • Conveyance Allowance,

  • Night Shift Allowance,

  • Leave Travel Allowance,

  • Medical Allowance,

  • Washing Allowance,

  • Punctuality Allowance,

  • Attendance Allowance,

  • Production Allowance,

  • Meal/Food Allowance,

  • Travelling Allowance,

  • Overtime Allowance, and various other allowances with any valid proof.

In the studies conducted by EPFO the authorities came across various instances that employers are showing allowances which was not supposed to be valid in the purview of the Act but was to save the liability towards PF Contribution.

Special allowance and other allowances is invariably given by the employers, in addition to basic wages, but when questioned by authorities for consideration of EPF dues, as what is the specialty for giving such a special allowance, no valid clarification was to be given by the employers. Earlier the Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts have held that all the allowances other than house rent allowance would attract provident fund contributions.

Despite that many employers have not taken interest to rectify their wage structures.

Latest Supreme Court Judgment on Provident Fund

This may have led to heavy financial liability towards the employers in addition to interest, damages, penalty and even prosecutions.

No valid proof has been given by the employer to demonstrate that the allowances which are in doubt are being paid to its employees were either:

  • variable, or

  • were linked to any incentive for production resulting into greater output by employee

  • that the such allowances were not paid to all employees in a particular category, or

  • were paid especially to those who avail the opportunity.

Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) in a study found that a large number of firms were splitting their employees’ salary into various allowances so as to reduce their PF liabilities. The employers had been convincing their employees that the splitting of salary would result in higher take-home pay. The matter then went to court.

The question placed before the Bench for adjudication was whether special allowances paid by a company to its employees will fall within the expression ‘basic wages’ under Section 2(b)(ii) read with Section 6 of the PF Act for computation of deduction towards PF.

Legal Position

THE EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUND AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952

Sec. 2(b) “Basic wages” means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave or on holidays with wages in either case in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment and which are paid or payable in cash to him, but does not include-

  1. the cash value of any food concession;

  2. any dearness allowance that is to say, all cash payments by whatever name called paid to an employee on account of a rise in the cost of living, house-rent allowance, overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment;

  3. any presents made by the employer.

Sec 6. Contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes

The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be ten per cent. Of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any, for the time being payable to each of the employees whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, and the employee’s contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may, if any employee so desires, be an amount exceeding ten per cent of his basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance if any, subject to the condition that the employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution payable under this section:

Provided that in its application to any establishment or class of establishments which the Central Government, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify, this section shall be subject to the modification that for the words “ten per cent”, at both the places where they occur, the words “12 per cent” shall be substituted:

Provided further that where the amount of any contribution payable under this Act involves a fraction of a rupee, the Scheme may provide for rounding off of such fraction to the nearest rupee, half of a rupee, or quarter of a rupee.

Explanation I – For the purposes of this section dearness allowance shall be deemed to include also the cash value of any food concession allowed to the employee.

Explanation II – For the purposes of this section, “retaining allowance” means allowance payable for the time being to an employee of any factory or other establishment during any period in which

Latest Supreme Court Judgment on Provident Fund

the establishment is not working, for retaining his services.

Hon’ble Supreme Court –

The Supreme Court of India while dealing with various appeals considered the legal provisions, the purpose of the legislation on provident fund and some of its earlier decisions. After considering all the above, Supreme Court laid down a universal law as regards the allowances which will have to be considered for PF deduction.

In a given case if amount of allowance goes beyond the basic wages, it has to be shown that the employee concerned had become eligible to get this extra amount beyond the normal work which he was otherwise required to put in. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “There is no data available on record to show what were the norms of work prescribed for those employees during the relevant period.

The Supreme Court has applied the “rule of universality” to the allowances.

If a particular allowance is universally paid by various employers and

  • is paid to all the employees of an establishment without any reference to the quantum of efforts put in by such employee or

  • the quantum of the output or,

  • the same takes the form of salary/ dearness allowance and needs to be included for the purpose of determining the quantum of PF deduction.

The test adopted to determine if any payment was to be excluded from basic wage is that the payment under the scheme must have a direct access and linkage to the payment of such special allowance as not being common to all.

So overtime allowance, bonus, commission or any other similar allowance payable to the employee in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment shall stand excluded. Likewise any variable earning which may vary between individual according to their efficiency and diligence will stand excluded from the term “basic wages”.

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that – It is not possible to ascertain whether extra amounts paid to the employee as Special allowance, is in fact, paid for any extra work which had exceeded the normal quantum prescribed for the employee. If special allowance is paid for any special work or for any special assignment or that by way of incentive which in naturally not fixed, it should be excluded from the purview of ‘basic wages’. However when questioned by the PF authorities, the employer has to produce records and prove that the payment was not being paid necessarily, compulsorily and ordinarily to the employee(s).

In case the monthly pay for determining PF contributions exceed ₹ 15,000/-, the same can be restricted to ₹ 15,000/-. If the establishment has been already contributing without so restricting, the same can be continued. If it is decided to restrict it to ₹ 15,000/- now, it can be done with the concurrence of the RPFC concerned in accordance with the case law Marathwada Gramin Bank Karmachari Sanghatana and Another v. Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others, SC, 9 Sep 2011 (Section 12 will not get attracted)

Advice

The ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), West Bengal v. Vivekananda Vidyamandir & Others [Civil Appeal No 6221 of 2011] will help the employers for determining the salary, salary structures, refreshing of the old policies and documentations with employees, so as to best fit in frame of law & especially in the view of Provident Fund compliances.

 

Ajay R. Singh, Advocate

  1. Additional evidence – Judgment already pronounced by Appellate Court – Production of additional evidence when no lis is pending, impermissible : CPC Order 41 Rule 27

    If the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to “pronounce judgment” or for any other substantial cause, it may allow such evidence or document to be produced or witness to be examined. In the facts of the instant case, however, “judgment” of the Appellate Court had already been “pronounced” and even if there was “any substantial cause”, such cause was required to be present only when the lis was pending. There is no scope for introduction of additional evidence at this belated stage when no lis is pending. If one has to accept the contention of the petitioner that even at this stage, additional evidence can be introduced before the Appellate Court, it would simply mean that a litigant can be allowed to keep his/her lis pending indefinitely before a Court of law by this process. It will also result in a situation simply unheard of and unacceptable in a modern justice system, i.e., a lis pending in perpetuity.

    Mahavir Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Sri Iswar Gajalakshmi Mata Thakurani and others: AIR 2019 Cal 1.

  2. Non-compliance of order of Municipal Assessment Tribunal – On ground that appeal against that order is pending – Not permissible ALLIED LAWS
    Till order of court is varied or modified, it remains valid and subsisting and has to be complied with

    In the present case it is an admitted position that the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal dated 13th October, 2014, is a final order. The revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be held by any stretch of imagination as a continuation of the original proceeding. By the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal, the annual valuation of the premises-in-question was reduced from ₹ 48,880/- to ₹ 23,850/-. If this valid and subsisting order is allowed to remain in abeyance till such time the revisional application is finally heard and disposed of, it would simply render nugatory the due process in law which was required to be followed by the parties in the instant case. It will also mean that no order passed by any competent legal forum which has attained finality, shall be given effect to or complied with by the concerned authority for an indefinite period of time on the specious plea that the said authority has decided to seek remedies which are essentially discretionary in nature. It would have been a different matter altogether had there been a substantive statutory right of appeal by the aggrieved party subsisting against the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and the period of limitation for filing such an appeal was not over.

    That apart, no order of stay has been passed by the Revisional Court in respect of that application.

    It is quite well-settled in law that till an order passed by a competent Court or forum is set aside and/or stayed and/or varied and/or modified, the said order remains valid and subsisting and is required to be complied with, both in law and in spirit. If a stand is taken by any person that he/she is unable to comply with a valid and subsisting order simply because an appeal is pending before a higher forum, it would render the concept of adherence to due process of law to a state of absolute farce. This is neither desirable nor acceptable nor permissible.

    Subrata Sen v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Others AIR 2019 Calcutta 32

  3. Doctrine of promissory estoppels – Is rule of equity flowing out fairness, striking on behaviour deficient in good faith: Evidence Act section 115

    The doctrine of legitimate expectation is invoked when a person may have been treated in a certain way by an administrative authority although he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. In Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs. Commercial Tax Officer and Others while explaining this concept the Supreme observed that the expectation may arise either from a representation or promise made by the authority, including an implied representation or from consistent past practice. Legitimate expectation can provide sufficient interest to enable one who cannot point to the existence of a substantive right to obtain the leave of the Court to apply for judicial review. It is generally agreed that “legitimate expectation” gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfilment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words, where a person’s legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking of a particular decision, then the decision- maker is to justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. In the same line, we may also look at the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel which is a rule of equity flowing out of fairness, striking on behaviour deficient in good faith. While applying this concept, the Court ought to be concerned with the conduct of a party for determination as to whether he can be permitted to take a different stand in a subsequent proceeding. The doctrine is thus premised on conduct of a party making a representation to the other so as to enable him to arrange his affairs in such a manner as if the said representation would be acted upon.

    In M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others AIR 1979 SC 621 the Supreme Court while considering this concept also discussed the origins of the doctrine.

    Hence, the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel would be applicable in a case where the appellant would suffer a detriment by acting on a representation made by the Government.

    Dawa Phuti Bhutia and others v. State of Sikkim and others AIR 2019 Sikkim 1

  4. Comparison of signatures – Opinion of handwriting expert – Necessity of – Court has discretion to invoke powers under S. 73 even in absence of opinion of such expert: Evidence Act Ss. 73, 47

    Court has the power to exercise that authority to compare two deeds. Even to compare between a signature taken in the Court room with the other signature for purpose of coming to a decision on the handwriting, falls within the competence of the Court. The opinion of the handwriting expert under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act is a supplementary aid to the Court to have reassurance. It is always the discretion of the court whether it can come to an inference without any dilemma or doubt in respect of the handwriting or the signature. If the court is satisfied about its opinion, it cannot be held that the opinion is wrong only because the Court has exercised that power without referring to the handwriting expert. That power has been provided as handy to a decision. When the court finds it difficult to come to a conclusive decision, the Court may on its motion or having been asked by either of the parties may refer the matter for opinion of the handwriting expert under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is well-entrenched that it is always prudent for the Court to take the opinion of the handwriting expert, but this is not an inflexible rule. The Court can also exercise its own discretion to come to an opinion.

    Smt. Parul Das and others v. Smt. Amiya Prava Das and Another AIR 2019 Tripura 1

  5. Appeal – Delay and laches – Fraud vitiates every action and cannot be kept under carpet on ground that action challenged was belated, more so in case of reasonable explanation for such delay

    Employee was guilty of committing fraudulent acts in getting his promotion to the post of Executive Engineer which was also contrary to the Service Rules.

    The Association had submitted a representation to the then Chief Minister. Going by the nature of allegations, the Chief Minister rightly acted thereupon and referred the matter to a Committee which, after examining the matter, had also given its report stating that the promotion of respondent No.1 was against the Rules. This provides reasonable explanation for delay, if any. Suit was filed nine years after promotion of employee. It was virtually a case of fraud, at least on three counts. First, by creating ex-cadre post of Executive Engineer only for employee and giving him that post when he was much junior to many others. Second, encadrement of employee as Executive Engineer by showing that there were thirteen posts when, in fact, there were only ten posts of Executive Engineer on that date. This was done obviously with the purpose of accommodating him. Third, the promotion was given when employee was not even eligible as per Rules as he had not put in minimum service of five years. Fraud vitiates every action and cannot be kept under the carpet on the ground that the action challenged was belated, more so when there is a reasonable explanation for such delay.

    Ajit Kr. Bhuyan and Others v. Debajit Das and Others AIR 2019 Supreme Court 492

  6. Dishonour of cheque – Complaint filed based on second statutory notice – Is maintainable: Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138

The three cheques were presented for collection and the same were dishonoured and returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The appellant-complainant had issued first notice to the respondent(s) on 31-8-2009 demanding the repayment of the amount. The cheques were again presented and returned with the endorsement “insufficient funds”. The appellant had issued a statutory notice on 25-1-2010 to the respondent(s). Since the cheque amount was not being paid, the appellant-complainant had filed the complaint u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the second statutory notice dated 25-1-2010.

The issue involved whether the prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is permissible or not, is no longer res integra. In Sadanandan’s case it was held that while second and successive presentation of the cheque is legally permissible so long as such presentation is within the period of six months or the validity of the cheque whichever is earlier, the second or subsequent dishonour of the cheque would not entitle the holder/payee to issue a statutory notice to the drawer nor would it entitle him to institute legal proceedings against the drawer in the event he fails to arrange the payment. The correctness of the decision in Sadanandan’s case was doubted and referred to the Larger Bench.

Three Judge Bench of this Court in 2013 ((1) SCC 177, para 27 and 31) MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan and Another held that there is nothing in the provisions of section 138 of the Act that forbids the holder of the Cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based on the second or successive dishonour of the cheque on its presentation.

M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. v. Mahindra Vadineni and Others AIR 2019 Supreme Court 502

 

Research Team

  1. S.4 : Charge of income-tax – Celebrity – Damages for reputation – Compensation received by a film actress from Coca Cola India Limited (CCIL) towards damages caused to her reputation – Cannot be assessed as any benefit, perquisites arising to her out of exercise of profession – Not liable to tax [S.2(24) 28(i)]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee, Tribunal held that additional amount of ₹ 95 lakhs received by assessee towards damages for being sexually harassed by Coca Cola India Limited (CCIL) employee, for having disparaged her professional reputation by false allegations and for repudiatory breach of contract by CCIL. Therefore such compensation could not be termed as any benefit, perquisites arising to assessee out of exercise of profession, hence, it cannot not be assessed as income either under S. 2(24) or under S. 28(i) and hence not liable to tax. (AY. 2004-05)

    Sushmita Sen. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 8 (Mum) (Trib.)

  2. S.4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Incentive received under Package Scheme of Incentives of Govt. of Maharashtra is capital receipt and not liable to tax

    Tribunal held that sales tax incentive availed under package scheme of incentive of Government of Maharashtra is capital receipt and is not chargeable to tax. (AY 2005-06)

    ACIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 21(SN) / 168 DTR 225 / 193 TTJ 521 (Nag.)(Trib.)

  3. S.9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Various co-ordination/facilitation services rendered – Business of developing and producing entertainment serials for audio visual platform – Consideration cannot be assessed as royalty – DTAA-India-South Africa [S.9(1)(vi),9(1) (vii), Art. 12]

    Tribunal held that various co-ordination/facilitation services rendered such as arranging for locational crew, producer, transportation, paper work for various stunts to be performed and other requirements for setting up and filming series, etc., were in nature of Line Production Services, same could not be termed as technical, managerial or consultancy services. Accordingly the consideration received by assessee for rendering of aforesaid services, could not be brought to tax as FTS. Tribunal also held that the consideration cannot be taxed as royalty since ownership of copyright remained vested with Endemol India. (AY. 2012-13)

    Endemol South Africa (Proprietary) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 172 DTR 111 / 196 TTJ 594 / 67 ITR 520 / 98 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.)(Trib.)

  4. S.10(22) : Educational institution – Exemption cannot be denied merely on ground that it was receiving fees from foreigner students in foreign exchange abroad by way of an arrangement with an educational organisation abroad

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that exemption cannot be denied merely on ground that it was receiving fees from foreigner students in foreign exchange abroad by way of an arrangement with an educational organisation abroad. The provisions of section 10(22) for claiming exemption provides that the requirement is that the university or the educational institute must exist solely for educational purposes in India in other words, the recipient of the income must have the character of an educational institute in India and its character outside India or it being a part of university existing outside India is not relevant for deciding whether its income would be exempt under section 10(22) or not. (AY 1998-99)

    DIT (E) v. American School of Bombay Education Trust (2019) 174 ITD 326 (Mum.) (Trib.)

  5. S.10AA : Special economic zones – Interest on capital and remuneration – Partnership deed is not providing any interest – AO cannot disallow the interest and remuneration and reduce the eligible exemption [S. 80IA]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that when the partnership deed has not provided any interest or remuneration to partners, the AO cannot disallow the interest and remuneration and reduce the eligible exemption. (AY 2014-15)

    ACIT v. Mukta Enterprise. (2019) 174 ITD 259 (Surat) (Trib.)

  6. S.10B : Export oriented undertakings – Delay of one month in uploading the return – System was affected by virus – Reasonable cause – Exemption cannot be denied [S.139(1)]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that when assessee had completed audit, but return was uploaded belatedly. Reason given was that computer got infected and it took some time to set it right so that assessee could upload entire data. This reasoning given was supported by certificate from computer specialist, who attended to problem. Explanation given that computers got infected was reasonable explanation given in circumstances, delay in filing return was not intentional delay but beyond reasonable control of assessee. Denial of exemption is held to be not justified. (AYs. 2008-09, 2011-12)

    Bartronics India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 65 ITR 540 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

  7. S.11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Accumulation of income – Application of income – Charitable trust is entitled to accumulate 15% of receipts without considering the expenditure incurred on objects of Trust – when the application of income, is more than receipts of year, excess application of income i.e., expenditure in hands of assessee, can be carried forward to succeeding year. [S.11(1)(a), 11(2)]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that Charitable trust is entitled to accumulate 15% of receipts without considering the expenditure incurred on objects of Trust – when the application of income, is more than receipts of year, excess application of income i.e., expenditure in hands of assessee, can be carried forward to succeeding year. (AY 2008-09)

    Maharshi Karve Stree Shikshan Samstha Karvenagar. v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 591 (Pune) (Trib.)

  8. S.11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Dividend income – Income can be taxed if the investment is in violation of the provision – Exemption cannot be denied to the Trust in respect of other income [S.11(5), 12AA,13(1) (d)]

    The assessee is a charitable institution registered u/s. 12AA (1) of the IT Act. It earned dividend income, other than income eligible for exemption u/s. 11. The AO denied benefit of exemption u/s. 11(1) for the entire income for violation of provision of S. 13(1)(d) read with S. 11(5) pertaining to mode of investment. CIT (A) held that benefit of exemption for entire income could not have been denied and at best AO could have denied exemption to extent of dividend income earned. Tribunal affirmed the order of CIT(A). (AY 2010-11)

    ITO v. The Times Centre For Media And Management Studies. (2018) 168 DTR 14/194 TTJ 715 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  9. S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – When there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made. [R. 8D]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that when there is no exempt income, no disallowance can be made. Followed CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (2015 372 ITR 97 (Guj.) (HC) (AY 2012-13)

    DCIT v. McFills Enterprise (P.) Ltd. (2019) 174 ITD 667 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

  10. S.23 : Income from house property – Annual letting value – Stock-in-trade – The annual letting value (ALV) of unsold units of properties lying as stock-in-trade is not assessable as income under the head Income from House Property [S.5,22, 23(4)]

    Tribunal held that the annual letting value (ALV) of unsold units of properties lying as stock in trade is not assessable as income under the head “Income from House Property”. The deeming provision of S. 23 cannot be extended beyond its ambit so as to cover the heads of income to which it does not operate. Taxing hypothetical income, which is otherwise not sanctioned by any provision under Chapter IV-D, cannot be permitted. (ITA No.1914/ PUN/2018, dt. 19-2-2019)(AY 2015-16)

    Shree Balaji Ventures v. ITO (Trib)(Pune), www.itatonline.org

  11. S.23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Vacancy allowance – Due to fall in property prices failed to let out same year after year because of which property remained vacant – Entitle to vacancy allowance [S.22, 23(1)(c)]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that, due to fall in property prices failed to let out same year-after-year because of which property remained vacant. Entitled to vacancy allowance. (AY 2012-13)

    Priyananki Singh Sood. (Ms.) v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 371 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  12. S.23 : Income from House Property – Annual value – Municipal rateable value Municipal rateable value is a recognised basis for determination of ALV, the AO cannot disregard the municipal rateable value and substitute some expected rent to be received [S.22]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that Municipal rateable value is a recognised basis for determination of ALV, the AO cannot disregard the municipal rateable value and substitute some expected rent to be received. Followed Tip Top Typography (2014) 368 ITR 330 (Bom.) (HC) (AY 2012-13)

    Pankaj Wadhwa. v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 479 (Mum) (Trib.)

  13. S. 28(i) : Business income – Agricultural income – Contract of growing and transporting grass – Growing and extracting grass – Agricultural Income – Transporting and relaying grass – Service – Business income [S. 2(1A),10(1)]

    The assessee was awarded a contract of growing and delivering grass at the venue of contract. Payment was made on the basis of milestones and not apportioned into agricultural and business activity. Partly allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the activity of growing and extracting grass would be considered as an agricultural activity. The subsequent activity of transporting the grass and relaying it at the fields would be in the nature of service and considered as a business activity which needed to be brought to tax. (AY 2011-12)

    Hortus Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 192 TTJ 465 / 165 DTR 147 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

  14. S.28(i) : Business loss – Actor – Advance of money to production house – Write-off of advances as non-recoverable – Film was not successful – Loss is allowable as business loss or as business expenditure [S.37(1)]

    Tribunal held that actor advanced money to a production house run by his wife to produce films in which he acted as hero so as to boost his career, however, films were not successful and his wife suffered loss and advances given by assessee could not be recovered, money advanced by assessee was in nature of business expediency accordingly the write off is allowable as business loss or business expenditure. (AY 2009-10)

    Jackie Shroff v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 770 (Mum.) (Trib.)

  15. S.28(i) : Business loss – Write-off of advances made for running and development of business is held to be allowable as deduction. [S.37(1)]

    Tribunal held that basic analogy for allowing write-off was to consider real nature of transaction. Advances were made for running of business and expenditure was not incurred for new project, neither it was totally disconnected with business activities carried out by assessee. Accordingly, Tribunal held that amount was advanced for tractor division of assessee in normal course of business and is allowable . (AY. 2002-03, 2003-04)

    Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2018) 193 TTJ 618 (Trib.) (Mum.)(Trib.)

  16. S.28(i) : Business Loss – Write-off of stores and parts – Imported goods were lying in custody of port authorities in bonded warehouse – Relinquishing its right and title to goods – Goods lost their life for use in its business – loss is incidental to business and allowable as business loss [S.37(1)]

    The expenses incurred when materials were imported, such expenses incurred for such import were for the purpose of business pending capitalisation, i.e., utilisation thereof. However, the assessee relinquished the right and title to those goods in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962 considering the goods so lying with the port authorities had lost their life for use in the assessee’s business. Further the payments towards insurance, warehouse rent and other charges would become uneconomic in true commercial sense. It is a business loss which is allowable as deduction. (AY 2005-06)

    ACIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 21 (SN)/ 168 DTR 225 / 193 TTJ 521 (Nag.)(Trib.)

  17. S.32 : Depreciation – Paper Brand – Trade marks – Intangible assets – Eligible depreciation [S.32(1) (ii)]

    Relying on the order dt. 11-5-2017 in ITA No. 2263/Del/2012 (AY 2008-09) in case of ABC Paper Ltd., Tribunal held that the definition of “intangible assets” under S. 32(1)(ii) is an inclusive definition which not only includes know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises but also any other business or commercial rights of similar nature. Therefore, the interpretation of the AO, that since “brand” is not specifically mentioned in S.32(1)(ii), it cannot be equated with “trade mark” and hence, depreciation on the same is not admissible is not proper. (AY. 2006-07 to 2013-14)

    DCIT v. Kuantum Papers Ltd. (2018) 62 ITR 439 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  18. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Brand building – Advertisement expenses – Held to be revenue expenditure

    Expenditure incurred in making advertisement of the products by the assessee is in the course of earning of profit without touching the capital asset. Therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee is revenue. (AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2012-13)

    ACIT v. Jansons Industries Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 19 (UO)(Chennai)(Trib.)

  19. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Royalty and logo fees are allowable as revenue expenditure

    Tribunal held that payment made for use of technical know-how and trademark and not for transferring the full ownership of know-how and thus the expenditure is revenue in nature. (AY 2011-12)

    GKN Driveline (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 62 ITR 784 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  20. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Corporate Social responsibility (CSR)expenses are allowable as business expenditure – Amendment in S. 37(1) for disallowing CSR expenses referred to in S. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 would not apply to earlier years

    Expenditure incurred on social responsibility is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession and also the amendment in S.37(1) for disallowing CSR expenses referred to in section 135 of Companies Act, 2013 would not apply to earlier years. (AY 2011-12)

    DCIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 19 (SN) (Raipur)(Trib.)

  21. S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Charity/Pooja and festival expenses are allowable as deduction

    Expenses on charity/pooja and festivals is held to be allowable as business expenditure. (AY. 2011-12)

    DCIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 19 (SN) (Raipur)(Trib.)

  22. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Payment made to doctors Convention fees is allowable expenditure – Not prohibited by law

    Tribunal held that Medical Council of India guidelines apply only to doctors and do not govern other entities and thus the guidelines cannot decide the allowability or otherwise of an expenditure under the Income-tax Act. Payment made to doctors convention fees is allowable expenditure. (AY 2011-12)

    India Medtronic P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 9 (SN)/ 95 taxmann.com 21 (Mum.) Trib.)

  23. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Ad hoc expenditure – Company – No personal expenses – car running and telephone expenses – Disallowances cannot be made 

    Tribunal held that in case of company there might not be any personal expenses incurred by the assessee on account of car running and telephone expenses. The ad hoc addition made by the Assessing Officer without pointing out any specific inadmissible expenses incurred by the assessee was wholly unjustified and it was to be deleted. (AY 2012-13)

    ITO v. Jaidka Woolen and Hosiery Mills P. Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 216 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  24. S.37(1) : Business expenditure Disallowances cannot be made Interest paid to income-tax department on delayed payment of Tax Deduction at Source is allowable as deduction, it is not personal tax [S. 40(a)(ii)]

    Tribunal held that interest paid to Income-tax department on delayed payment of Tax Deduction at Source is allowable as deduction, it is not personal tax. Matter was remanded for verification. (AY 2004-05)

    Mukand Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 605 (Mum.) (Trib.)

  25. S.40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at Source Disallowances cannot be made Non-resident – Engaged in distribution of recharge pens of various DTH providers via online network – Servers of USA based company Amazon for which it paid web hosting charges – No control over server or servers space being deployed by Amazon, while providing e-services as per agreement – Not royalty – Not liable to deduct tax at source – Amendment, if any, to scope of royalty by an amendment in 2012 by Finance Act with retrospective effect cannot fasten assessee with liability to withhold tax for the years which have already been closed prior to insertion of amendment – DTAA-India – USA [S.9(1)(vi), Art. 12]

    AO held that web hosting charges for use of servers, was nothing but charges paid for use of commercial equipments within meaning of section 9(1)(vi), read with Explanation 2
    and Explanation 5 of the said clause, thereby, assuming character of royalty, hence liable to deduct tax at source. On appeal the Tribunal held that since assessee did not possess and did not have any control over server or servers space being deployed by Amazon, while providing e-services as per agreement, then there was no scope to construe that e-service charges paid to Amazon could be described as royalty. Accordingly the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source hence no disallowances can be made. Amendment, if any, to scope of royalty by an amendment in 2012 by Finance Act with retrospective effect cannot fasten assessee with liability to withhold tax for the years which have already been closed prior to insertion of amendment. (AY 2011-12)

    EPRSS Prepaid Recharge Services India (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 196 TTJ 529 / 100 taxmann.com 52 / (2019)173 DTR 308 (Pune)(Trib.)

  26. S.40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source Disallowances cannot be made Non-resident – Amount not claimed as expenditure – No disallowance can be made – Exemption certificate for non deduction of tax at source – Once certificate has been issued no disallowances can be made – If income is not chargeable to tax in India – No disallowance can be made – Once it is held that income is not chargeable to tax in India, no disallowance can be made [S.195, 197]

    Tribunal held that if no deduction is claimed for an expenditure, there can be no question of disallowance. Once the department has issued certificate for non-deduction of tax at source, there can be no disallowance. Once it is held that income is not chargeable to tax in India, no disallowance (AYs. 2004-05 to 2009-10)

    Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corp. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 305 (Delhi)(Trib.)

  27. S.40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Project competition method – Provision for expenses – When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure – Not liable to deduct tax at source – No disallowance can be made [S.145]

    Tribunal held that since the expenditure was only estimated and work would be executed against these expenses in subsequent years, the payee was not known. Hence it was not possible for the assessee to deduct tax at source on the estimated expenditure on work which was to be completed in years to come. The financial statements of a particular project were to be made once in the life of the project, on completion of substantial activity and therefore, the assessee did not have any option but to make estimate for expenses on minor/ miscellaneous work. On facts the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted based on the fact that the assessee had paid tax at source on or before submission of the return (AY 2012-13)

    Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 217 (Kol.) (Trib.)

  28. S.40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Excessive or unreasonable – Provisions are not applicable to co-operative society [S.40A(2)(b)]

    Provision of S.40A(2) are not applicable to co-operative society, accordingly no disallowance can be made for alleged excess payment. (AY 2009-10)

    DCIT v. Ganesh Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (2019) 174 ITD 135 (Surat) (Trib.)

  29. S.45 : Capital gains – Penny Stocks – Capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on the basis that the price of the shares has risen manifold and the reason for astronomical rise is not related to any fundamentals of market Disallowances cannot be made – If the transactions are duly proved by trading from stock exchange and the documentation is proper, the gains cannot be assessed as unexplained credit or as unexplained money [S.10 (38), 68, 69]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that capital gains cannot be treated as bogus solely on the basis that the price of the shares has risen manifold and the reason for astronomical rise is not related to any fundamentals of market. If the transactions are duly proved by trading from stock exchange and the documentation is proper, the gains cannot be assessed as unexplained credit or as unexplained money. (ITA No. 2766/Del/2018, dt. 26-11-2018)(AY 2014-15)

    Mukta Gupta v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  30. S.45 : Capital gains – Cash credits – Bogus long-term capital gains – Penny stocks – Filed evidences for (a) purchase of shares, (b) payment by account payee cheque, (c) balance sheet disclosing investments, (d) demat statement (e) evidence of sale of shares through stock exchange, (e) bank statement reflecting sale receipts, (f) brokers ledger, (g) Contract notes etc., the gains cannot be treated as bogus on human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises – Addition as cash credits is deleted [S.10(38), 68]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the assessee has filed all necessary evidences in support of the transactions. Some of these evidences are (a) evidence of purchase of shares, (b) evidence of payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of bank statements, (c) copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, (d) copy of demat statement reflecting purchase, (e) copy of merger order passed by the High Court, (f) copy of allotment of shares on merger, (g) evidence of sale of shares through the stock exchange, (h) copy of demat statement showing the sale of shares, (i) copy of bank statement reflecting sale receipts, (j) copy of brokers ledger, (k) copy of contract notes etc. Accordingly the addition as cash credit is held to be not justified. (ITA No. 2474/Kol/2018, dt. 1-2-2019)(AY. 2014-15)

    Mahavir Jhanwar v. ITO (Kol.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  31. S.45: Capital gains – Unexplained investment – Long term capital gains – Penny stocks – Sale of shares – Accommodation entries – Purchase and sale of shares had been made through Bombay Stock Exchange and through DEMAT account – Sale proceeds to be assessed as long term and cannot be assessed as unexplained investment – Eligible exemption [S. 10(38), 69, 131]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that assessee had purchased and sold shares of a company which amalgamated into another company by order of High Court. AO held that the scrips of Kailash were used by entry providers for providing bogus accommodation entries and that in some other matter in course of proceedings before Investigation Wing, Chartered Accountant had confirmed that he had provided accommodation entry in scrip of Kailash and, consequently, AO treated long-term capital gains under S. 69 of the Act. Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the assessee had duly shown transaction in cheques right from purchase to sale of shares and all transactions had been routed through DEMAT account in Bombay Stock Exchange as per quoted price as on that date. SEBI did not find any prima facie material for manipulation in price of scrip of Kailash. Further, statement of Chartered Accountant could not be sole ground to implicate assessee and justify additions especially when, nowhere assessee had been found to be beneficiary of any kind of accommodation entry in any inquiry by Investigation Wing or any such material had been unearthed by department. Accordingly the long-term capital gains shown by assessee was genuine and, consequently liable for exemption under S 10(38) of the Act. (AY 2014-15)

    Vidhi Malhotra. v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 655 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  32. S.45 : Capital gains – Transfer – Capital asset – Deemed transfer – Amount received on assignment of by virtue of unregistered agreement of leasehold rights – After the Amendment Act 2001 – Not liable to capital gains tax. [S. 2(14), 2(47(v), Transfer of Property Act, 1882 S.53A, Registration Act, 1908, S.17, 49]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that assignment of leasehold rights is not registered, after the Amendment Act 2001, unless the document is registered have no effect in law for the purpose of section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act. By the aforesaid amendment the words “the contract, though required to be registered, has not been registered, or” in section 53A of 1882 Act have been omitted. Simultaneously, sections 17 and 49 of Registration Act, 1908 have been amended, clarifying that unless the documents containing the contract to transfer for consideration any immovable property is registered, it shall not have any effect in law; other than for being received as evidence of a contract for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral proceedings not required to be effected by a registered instrument. Accordingly the amount received is not liable to capital gains tax. (AY 2008-09)

    Mallika Investment Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 386 (Kol) (Trib.)

  33. S.45 : Capital Gains – Joint Development Agreement (JDA) – Mere licence to builder to enter property for purpose of carrying out development – Cannot be regarded as transfer – Capital gains tax is not leviable [S.2(47) (v), Transfer of Property Act, 1882 S.53A]

    Tribunal held that mere licence to builder to enter property for purpose of carrying out development, cannot be regarded as transfer. The mere fact that development of the property be done without possession, cannot be the basis to come to a conclusion that possession was delivered in part performance of the agreement for sale in the manner laid down in S. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Such possession is on behalf of the assessee and not in the independent capacity of purchaser of the property. Accordingly capital gains tax is not leviable. (AY 2006-07)

    Lakshmi Swarupa. (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 54 (SMC)(Bang.) (Trib.)

  34. S.47(vii) : Capital gains – Business income – Income from other sources – Transfer by a shareholder in a scheme of amalgamation – Increase in general reserve on transaction related to the composite Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation – An anti-abuse provision which applies only to cases of bogus capital building and money laundering – It does not apply to an amalgamation where shares are allotted at alleged undervaluation. Increase in general reserves due to recording of assets of amalgamating company at FMV not give rise to any real income to the assessee – It is capital in nature – Amendment to s. 47(vii) by FA 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2003 is clarificatory and retrospective – Addition is held to be not valid [S.28(iv) 56(2) (viia)]

    The question before the Tribunal was whether the AO/DRP has erred in making addition u/s. 28(iv) of the Act on account of increase in general reserves on transaction related to the Composite Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation and investment received on Composite Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation considered as income u/s. 56(2) (viia) of the Act. Tribunal held that anti-abuse provision which applies only to cases of bogus capital building and money laundering. It does not apply to an amalgamation where shares are allotted at alleged undervaluation. Increase

    in general reserves due to recording of assets of amalgamating company at FMV did not give rise to any real income to the assessee. It is capital in nature. Amendment to s. 47(vii) by FA 2012 w.e.f. 1-4-2003 is clarificatory & retrospective. (ITA No. 1148/Del/2017, dt. 22- 2-2019) (AY 2012-13)

    Aamby Valley Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 102 taxmann. com 38(Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  35. S.47(xiiib) : Capital gains – Transaction not regarded as transfer – Conversion of firm in to LLP – Transfer – On cumulative satisfaction of conditions (a) to (f) of proviso to section 47(xiiib) would not be chargeable to capital gains [S.45]

    Transaction involving conversion of a private limited company or unlisted public company to an LLP as contemplated in section 47(xiiib) would though be a transfer on cumulative satisfaction of conditions (a) to (f) of proviso to section 47(xiiib) would not be chargeable to capital gains. (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & C.O No.2/Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018) (AY 2010-11)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433/197 TTJ 45 (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  36. S.47A : Capital gains – Withdrawal of exemption – Conversion of firm into LLP – Provision will apply only for purpose of withdrawing an exemption earlier availed by an assessee and not for determination of exemption under section 47(xiiib) of the Act [S. 45 47A(4)]

    Provision of S. 47A(4) will apply only for purpose of withdrawing an exemption earlier availed by an assessee and could not have been applied for determining whether the assessee is not eligible for claim of exemption under section 47(xiiib) in year of raising of such claim itself. (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & CO No. 2/ Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018) (AY 2010 -11)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433/197 TTJ 45 (Mum.) (Trib.) www.itatonline.org

  37. S.48 : Capital gains – Computation – Full value of consideration – Conversion of a private limited company into assessee-LLP – Book value – Book value was to be regarded as full value of consideratzion for purpose of computation of capital gains. [S.45, 47]

    Upon conversion of a private limited company into assessee-LLP entire undertaking of erstwhile company got vested into assessee LLP, no separate cost other than ‘book value’ would be attributable to individual assets and liabilities, hence such ‘book value’ could only be regarded as full value of consideration for purpose of computation of capital gain (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & C.O No. 2/Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018). (AY 2010-11)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433/197 TTJ 45 (Mum.) (Trib.) www.itatonline.org

  38. S.49 : Capital gains – Previous owner – Cost of acquisition – Shares received on dissolution of Trust – Period of holding of the previous owner i.e., the Trust to be considered – Sale consideration received on sale of shares has to be assessed as long term capital gains [S.45, 49(1)(iii)(b), 54F, 68]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in treating the sale consideration in the hands of the beneficiary as short term capital gains in respect of shares received on the date of dissolution of Trust. For computing capital gains, period of holding of the previous owner ie. the Trust to be considered. Sale consideration received on sale of shares has to be assessed as long term capital gains.

    (ITA No. 583 /Mum/2016 dt. 18-1-2019, ITA No. 584/Mum/2016 dt. 18-1 -2019 (AY. 2006 -07)

    ACIT v. Dhruv Khaitan (Mum.) (Trib.) (UR)

  39. S.49 : Capital gains – Previous owner – Cost of acquisition – Conversion of Private Limited Company into LLP – Capital assets become property of assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution, cost of acquisition of assets shall be deemed to be cost for which previous owner of property had acquired same [S. 2(42A)45, 49(1) (iii)]

    Conversion of Private Limited Company to LLP, capital assets become property of assessee by succession, inheritance or devolution, cost of acquisition of assets shall be deemed to be cost for which previous owner of property had acquired same. (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & CO No.2/Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018) (AY 2010 -11)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433/197 TTJ 45 (Mum.) (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  40. S.50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Property not freehold property but occupied by tenants and court cases to get premises vacated pending – Kanpur Development Authority issuing letters to assessee proposing to take over certain portion of his property in connection with road widening – Addition on account of difference in stamp duty and sale deed is not justified [S.45]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the property was not freehold property but was occupied by tenants and there were court cases going on to get the premises vacated. The assessee objected that the Kanpur Development Authority had issued letters to him to take over a certain portion of his property in connection with road widening. The property deed mentioned that it was occupied by tenants and it was proved since court cases were going on against them. The Valuation Officer had not dealt with the issue as to why benefit should not be given to the assessee when the Kanpur Development Authority took away some portion of the property for road widening. The Valuation Officer had also not dealt with the impact on the valuation of the property already being occupied by tenants and court cases going on. The Valuation Officer had simply applied the circle rate available and made the report. As the case wherein the sale deed value was declared and independent valuation done by the authorised valuer but the subordinate authorities had not categorically dealt with the submissions of the assessee nor had brought out any material on record to support why the Valuation Officer’s report should be taken into consideration. Accordingly the addition is deleted. (AY. 2008-09)

    Atul Kumar Garg, HUF v. ITO (2018) 64 ITR 72 (SN) (Luck.)(Trib.)

  41. S.54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Though new asset purchased within prescribed period had been let out would still be entitled to claim deduction [S.45]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that though new asset purchased within prescribed period had been let out would still be entitled to claim deduction. The amendment to proviso to S. 54F made by Finance Act, 2000 as clarified by Circular No. 794, dt. 9-8-2000 (2000) 245 ITR 121 (St) which is the Explanatory Note to Finance Act, 2000. (AY 2013-14)

    ACIT v. Ishita Mohatta (Mrs.) (2019) 174 ITD 407 (Kol) (Trib.)

  42. S.55 : Capital gains – No cost of acquisition – Transfer of trade mark – Cost of acquisition is not ascertainable – Not liable to tax [S.2(14), 4, 45, 48, 55(2)(a)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that though the trade mark is a capital asset which was transferred by an agreement for a period of two years, as the cost of acquisition is not ascertainable receipt is capital receipt and not liable to capital gains tax. (AY 1998-99)

    ITO v. Modern Home Care Products Ltd. (2019) 174 ITD 209 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  43. S.56 : Income from other sources – Agricultural land – Gift – Agricultural land is an immovable property – Stamp valuation – It is immaterial whether they fall under definition of capital asset or stock-in-trade – Chargeable as gifts [S.2(14), 50C, 56(2)(viib), 69]

    Tribunal held that provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) refer to any immovable property and same is not circumscribed or limited to any particular nature of property. Accordingly the agricultural lands fall under definition of an immovable property for the purpose of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. It is immaterial whether they fall under definition of capital asset or stock-in-trade. Accordingly the addition made as unexplained investment is affirmed. (AY. 2014-15)

    ITO v. Trilok Chand Sain (2019) 174 ITD 729 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

  44. S.56 : Income from other sources – Shareholder – Close relatives – Transactions between close relatives provisions of S. 56(2) (vii)(c) is not applicable – Revision on the basis of audit objection is held to be not valid [S.56 (2) (vii)(c), 263]

    The assessee was holding 76 per cent of total shareholder in Jai Maakali Poultry Products Pvt. Ltd. There were total seven shareholders in the company and all of them were close relatives either legal ascendants or descendants. Company issued shares at rate of ₹ 100 per share under rights issue. Assessee alone had applied for rights issue and company had allotted shares to assessee. Fair market value of shares was ₹ 416.38 per share. PCIT passed the revisional order on the ground that the assessee had received shares for value lesser than book value, therefore, provisions of section 56(2)(vii) (c) would be attracted and differential amount between book value and price paid by assessee for shares required to be brought to tax under head income from other sources. On appeal the Tribunal held that in the instant case, transaction of transfer of shares was within family and close relatives, proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(c) could not be applied. Tribunal also held that revision on the basis of audit objection is held to be not valid. (AY 2013-14)

    Kumar Pappu Singh. v. DCIT (2019) 174 ITD 465 (Visakh.) (Trib.)

  45. S.68 : Cash credits – Share capital- Share premium – Directors were examined – Documents filed – Deposits were made before issue of cheque – Failed to establish creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction – Addition is confirmed

    Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that though the directors were examined and documents were filed, on examination of the profit and loss account and balance sheet the Tribunal observed that the companies have shown meagre profit and there was deposit before issue of cheques. Considering the surrounding circumstances and referring the judgment of Supreme Court in PCIT v. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019 )103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) upheld the addition made by the AO (AY 2006-07)(ITA No. 4778/Del/2013 dt. 8-3-2019)

    ITO v. Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) (Trib) (UR)

  46. S.68 : Cash credits – Bogus Capital gains – Penny Stocks – Though the AO did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee, there is need for finding of fact on (i) the nature of the shares transactions; (ii) make- believe nature of paper work; (iii) Camouflage the bogus nature; and, (iv) the relevance of human probabilities etc. – Addition is confirmed as cash credits [S.10(38) 45]

    The assessee purchased 300 shares of Pyramid Trading Finance Ltd. now known as Misha Finance & Trading Ltd. The said shares were transferred to Tohee Trading Agencies Pvt. Ltd. As per SEBI’s website the said company i.e.,

    Misha Finance & Trading Ltd was one of the delisted Companies. Purchase price was ₹ 0.37 and the sale price was ₹ 45 per share increase of 120 times within 24 months. The assessee claimed exemption u/s. 10 (38) of the Act which was disallowed by the AO and assessed as cash credits. On appeal, CIT(A) also confirmed the addition. On appeal to the Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that though the AO did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee, there is need for finding of fact on (i) the nature of the shares transactions; (ii) make-believe nature of paper work; (iii) Camouflage the bogus nature and, (iv) the relevance of human probabilities etc. – Addition is confirmed as cash credits. Followed PCIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 379 (Delhi) (HC) (ITA No. 1875/PUN/2018, dt. 1-3-2019) (AY 2015-16)

    Shamim Imtiaz Hingora v. ITO (SMC) (Pune) (Trib), www.itatonline.org.

  47. S.68 : Cash credits – Shares – Purchase of shares held to be genuine – Sale consideration cannot be assessed as assessee’s own unaccounted money [S.45]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that when the Assessing Officer had accepted purchase of shares as genuine transaction, sale consideration received on sale of shares cannot be assessee’s own unaccounted money. (AY 2013-14)

    ACIT v. Navneet Kumar Sureka (2019) 174 ITD 320 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  48. S.68 : Cash credits – Share premium – The fact that the premium is abnormally high as per test of human probabilities is not sufficient – The AO has to lift the corporate veil &  determine whether any benefit is passed on to the shareholders/ directors. Directions issued to AO to establish whether assessee company was used as a vehicle to pass on the benefit to shareholders/directors – Tribunal directed the AO to verify all the funds and cash flow management of the company for both AYs. 2009-10 & 2010-11. AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing on benefit to the shareholders/directors- Addition was deleted subject to verification [S.28(iv), 56]

    The appellant contended before the Tribunal that, the representatives from investor companies were examined on oath and have confirmed making the investment at premium. Complete details and confirmation of transaction available and are not contradicted in any way that shares were acquired at a premium as continued to be reflected in books of accounts of Appellant Company. Quantity of share premium on shares of private company are not regulated by law and is based on commercial negotiations. Share premium money received is fully accounted and continues to remain in the company to date fully compliant with section 78 of companies Act. Allegations that the same could be towards services by promoters are totally baseless and not supported by any material. Amount of share premium is permitted to be negotiated between investor and company and there are no restrictions on the quantum. Bharati Cement Corporation Limited as legal entity is distinct and separate from promoters or shareholders, presumptions made in impugned order are contrary to settled principles of law, unlawful, factually baseless and invalid. As no amount of share premium is alleged or even shown to have been allowed as pass through by the company there is no basis for suspicions and wild allegations. Without prejudice, even if lifting of corporate veil is permissible, the consequence would not lead to taxation of share premium in the hands of Appellant Company. The Tribunal held that the fact that the premium is abnormally high as per test of human probabilities is not sufficient to the AO to lift the corporate veil. Presumptions of some service/benefits being allowed by Government of State of Andhra Pradesh to investor companies, even if presumed to be true for argument sake cannot justify taxation of any amount in the hands of Appellant company, as being a legal entity Appellant Company was neither in business of providing such services or was actually involved in any way. Details provided also establish that the entire sum and even subsequent share premium amount received from PARFICM remains invested in Appellant’s business as on date of this hearing. AO brought impugned share premium to tax under S. 28 (iv) and S. 68 but the learned CIT(A) has confirmed that the same is taxable under S. 56. Department is not in appeal against learned CIT(A) order. The subsequent amendment by way of S. 56 2(viib) effective 1-4-2013 i.e., AY 2013-14 cannot be applied for impugned transactions completed during AY 2009-10 and 2010-11. On record confirm that S. 68 and S. 28 (iv) have no application at all. Tribunal directed the AO to verify all the funds and cash flow management of the company for both AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11. AO should not resort to rely on circumstantial evidence or on test of human probabilities but on factual evidence of passing on benefit to the shareholders/directors. Hence, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. (ITA Nos. 696 & 697/Hyd/2014, dt. 10-8-2018) (AY 2009-10, 2010-11)

    Bharathi Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Hyd.) (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  49. S.68 : Cash credits – Deposit in bank account – Not maintaining books of account – Presumptive taxation – Return was accepted – Addition as cash credit is held to be not valid [S.44AF]

    Tribunal held that since the assessee has not maintained the books of account and return filed under presumptive taxation has been accepted. Mismatch in the gross receipt and net income, amount deposited in the bank account, addition cannot be made as cash credits. (AYs .2010-11 to 2012-13)

    Babbal Bhatia (Smt.) v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 532 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  50. S.69 : Unexplained investments – Hindu Undivided Family – Agricultural land – Partition – Fixed deposits – Benami names of family members – Retraction of statement – No assessment is made in larger Hindu Undivided Family – Additions can be made in the hands of smaller HUF – Investments in fixed deposits to be considered as unexplained investments of smaller HUF in equal shares – Matter remanded. [S.132(4), 171]

    Tribunal held that merely on the basis of statement addition cannot be made especially when the statement was retracted within reasonable time. On facts the HUF was not assessed to tax hence no order u/s. 171 is required to be passed. As the property was apportioned, additions can be made only in the hands of smaller HUFs and not in the hands of larger HUF. Fixed deposits can be assessed only in the hands of smaller HUFs in equal shares., in different years. Matter remanded. (AY 1999-2000 to 2009-10 )

    DCIT v. E. Ramesh Upadhyay, HUF (2019) 69 ITR 164 (Bang.)(Trib.)

  51. S.72A : Carry forward and set-off of accumulated loss – Conversion of private limited company to LLP – Failure to satisfy conditions laid down in proviso – Carry forward of losses of erstwhile company by LLP is not entitled. [S.47 xiiib), 72A (6A), Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, S. 56, 58 (4)]

    Assessee had failed to satisfy conditions laid down in proviso to clause (xiiib) of S. 47 carry forward and set off of accumulated losses of erstwhile company by assessee LLP is not entitled (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & CO No.2/ Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018). (AY 2010-11)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433 /197 TTJ 45 (Mum.) (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  52. S.80IA : Industrial undertakings – Audit report – Filing of an audit report is procedural and directory in nature – It can also be filed before Appellate Authority [Form No. 10CCB]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that filing of an audit report is procedural and directory in nature. It can also be filed before Appellate Authority, CIT(A) has rightly admitted the Audit report filed by the assessee during the course of the appellate proceedings and allowing the claim u/s. 80IA of the Act. (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & C.O No.2/Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018)(AY. 2011-12)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433 /197 TTJ 45 ( Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  53. S.80IC : Special category States – Profit on each undertaking has to be treated separately – Profits and losses of all eligible undertakings are not to be netted for purpose of calculating deduction – Each undertaking is to be taken on a standalone basis – Where the assessee availed deduction for a period of 5 years at rate of 100 per cent on substantial expansion, deduction for remaining 5 assessment years will be at rate of 30 per cent and not at rate of 100 per cent [S. 80IC (2), 80IC (5), 80IC (7)]

    Tribunal held that while calculating the deduction, profit on each undertaking has to be treated separately. Profits and losses of all eligible undertakings are not to be netted for purpose of calculating deduction. Each undertaking is to be taken on a stand-alone basis. Assessee availed deduction for a period of 5 years at rate of 100 per cent on substantial expansion, deduction for remaining 5 assessment years will be at rate of 30 per cent and not at rate of 100 per cent. (AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13)

    Milestone Gears (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 702 (Chd.) (Trib.)

  54. S.92B : Transfer pricing – International Transaction – Advertising Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses is not an international transaction – Adjustment is held to be not justified [S.92C]

    Tribunal held that Advertising Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses is not an international transaction following the order for the AY 2010-11 (I.T.A./1600/Mum/2015 dtd. 17-1-2018) wherein it had held that AMP is not an international transaction as there was no ‘prior arrangement’. (AY 2011-12)

    India Medtronic Private Limited v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 9 (SN)/ 95 taxmann.com 21 (Mum.) (Trib.)

  55. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Inter group services – Payments in accordance with the written agreements – Adjustment is held to be not justified [S.92CA]

    An agreement entered into between parties cannot be disregarded without assigning cogent reasons. The services, by their very nature, are intangible and therefore, the evidences regarding availing such services and benefits received as a result of availing such services can be best demonstrated by narration and descriptions as evidenced by supportive emails. Practice was accepted since AY 2007-08. Adjustment is held to be not valid. (AY 2014-15)

    Avery Dennison (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 68 ITR 486 (Delhi)(Trib.)

  56. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – CUP method – Interest free loan to subsidiary – Shares were allotted – Adjustment is held to be not justified

    Advancing interest free loans must not necessarily be deemed to be interest earning activity and activity to capitalise opportunity cost for investing in new territories – The funds were raised for the purpose of investment in subsidiaries and on the fact that these funds were interest free and ultimately, shares were allotted, it shows that there is no adjustment to be made, on the CUP method adopted by the AO/TPO, even if the transaction is considered as one that of international transaction. (AY 2008-09 to 2011-12)

    Bartronics India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 65 ITR 540 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

  57. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Royalty paid to associated enterprises was same as assessed when it was an independent entity – No adjustment to be made

    Tribunal held that the two parties were independent at time of signing agreement for payment of royalty and, subsequently, when concern became associated enterprise in a later period, price paid to associated enterprises was same as assessed when it was an independent entity.

    Moreover, payment of royalty to AE had been accepted in preceding and succeeding assessment years and payment of royalty had been made to AE at rates approved by RBI and therefore, Tribunal had deleted the adjustment made by the TPO on account on payment of royalty to the AE. (AYs 2003-04, 2005-06)

    DCIT v. Kalyani Hayes Lemmerz Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 938 /167 DTR 36 (Pune) (Trib)

  58. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’slength price – Resale of goods – RPM method is most appropriate – Foreign exchange gain/loss arising out of revenue transactions is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost, both for assessee as well as comparables – Granting adjustment on account of import duty paid because it incurred higher import duty in comparison with comparable companies – No adjustment on account of separate items resulting into computation of gross profit can be permitted

    Tribunal held that where assessee imported finished goods from its Associated Enterprises (AEs) and resold same to non-AEs without any value addition, RPM was most appropriate method in respect of distribution activities undertaken by assessee. Foreign exchange gain/loss arising out of revenue transactions is required to be considered as an item of operating revenue/cost, both for assessee as well as comparables. As regards imported finished goods from its Associated enterprises (AEs) and resold same to non-AEs without any value addition. Granting adjustment on account of import duty paid because it incurred higher import duty in comparison with comparable companies. Whether import duty has been paid or not or paid to lower extent by comparables cannot have any effect over computation of gross profit margin of comparables, no adjustment on account of separate items resulting into computation of gross profit can be permitted. (AY 2011-12)

    Fresenius Kabi India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 172 DTR 129 / 196 TTJ 1023 / 68 ITR 27 / 100 taxmann.com 134 (Pune)(Trib.)

  59. S.115JA : Book profit – Debenture Redemption Reserve – Ascertained liability – Deductible for computing book profits – Order of Assessing Officer as per the ratio of jurisdictional High Court Revision is bad in law on merit and law [S. 263]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that there being a decision by the jurisdictional High Court allowing the deduction of debenture redemption reserve above, it would be binding on the PCIT. PCIT cannot hold that the order of Jurisdictional High Court is per incurium. The revision was based on a mere change of opinion and not because the original order was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Hence, the order of the PCIT is liable to be quashed on merits also. Followed CIT v. Raymond Ltd (2009) 2009 Taxman 65 (Bom.) (HC) and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (HC). (ITA. No. 3530/Mum/2018 dt. (ITA. No. 3530/Mum/2018 / 3531 dt. 10-1-2019 (AY 2009-10, 2010-11)

    Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd. v. PCIT (Mum.) (Trib.) (UR)

  60. S.143(3) : Assessment – Limited verification – The AO has to consider the claim of the assessee to make correct assessment –Matter remanded

    Tribunal held that the AO has to consider the claim of the assessee to make correct assessment. The Department could not take advantage of the ignorance of the assessee to collect more tax than is legitimately due in view of Circular No. 14 dated April 11, 1955. Therefore according to Circular No. 7 of 2017 there is a bar on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to go beyond the subject issue under limited scrutiny cases, but he is not restrained from adjudicating issues raised by the assessee. Accordingly the matter remanded. (AY 2014-15)

    Thakurraj Kumar v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 79 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

  61. S.143(3) : Assessment – Assessment of amalgamating company – Notices were issued prior to the amalgamation with another company – Assessment proceedings cannot be held to be invalid [S.142(1) 143(2)]

    As the notices under sections 142(1) & 143(2) were issued prior to the amalgamation with another company the assessment proceedings cannot held to be invalid. The AO can proceed with the assessment proceedings by transposing the amalgamating company as the assessee and issuing fresh notice under section 142(1) and complete the assessment proceedings. (AYs. 2004-05, 2006-07 2007-08)

    Cyient Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 69 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

  62. S.144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Not an eligible assessee – Draft assessment order is invalid [S.92CA(3)]

    Held, dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that according to the provisions of S. 144C(15)(b), the assessee must be a foreign company or an assessee in whose case there was any variation arising out of or in consequence of an order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer in terms of S.92CA(3). There was no variation as a consequence of any order passed by the Transfer Pricing Officer as there was no adjustment made in the case of the assessee. As the assessee had not fulfilled any of the conditions to become an “eligible assessee” in terms of S. 144C(15)(b), the draft assessment order was invalid and the final assessment order was without jurisdiction and null and void. (AY 2010-11)

    ACIT v. Espn Star Sports Mauritius SNCET Companie (2019) 69 ITR 153 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  63. S.144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – In terms of sub-section (1) of section 144C, issuance of draft assessment order is a sine qua non before Assessing Officer can pass a regular assessment order under section 143(3) [S.143(3) 292B]

    Tribunal held that the AO had passed a regular assessment order along with notice of demand under section 156 of the Act, notice under section 274 read with section 271 was issued to the assessee.

    Tribunal noted that undoubtedly, if draft assessment order was wrongly titled an assessment order, section 292B should have come to the rescue of the AO. However given the fact that resultant tax demand and penalty proceedings have been initiated, it was a final assessment order which has been passed by the AO in substance and in effect. Thus the Tribunal concluded that since the AO had failed to follow the mandate of the provisions of section 144C of the Act whereby he was required to pass a draft assessment order which is mandatory and is prescribed by the statute where order is passed under section 92CA proposing transfer pricing adjustment, the final assessment order passed was without jurisdiction. Further, the issuance of a show-cause notice cannot be equated and treated as a draft assessment order as the same would make the provisions of section 144C redundant. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order was set aside and assessee’s appeal was thus allowed. (AY 2011-12)

    DCIT v. Jaipur Rugs Company P. Ltd. ( 2018)193 TTJ 49 (UO)/ 64 ITR 128 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

  64. S.145 : Method of accounting – Project completion – Profit and loss account and Balance sheet is prepared on completion of project, provision for expenses in respect of ancillary work yet to be completed has to be taken into consideration – When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure – Not liable to deduct tax at source – No disallowance can be made [S.40(a)(ia)]

    Tribunal held that since in the project completion method, the entire expenses and the entire sales should be shown, it was necessary for the assessee to make provision for estimated expenditure to be incurred in subsequent years on account of minor or miscellaneous work. Accordingly the treatment of the assessee in respect of the estimated expenditure like expenses on minor or miscellaneous work, in its books of account was proper. Since the assessee had disclosed its entire project receipts of its project in the assessment year 2012-13, all the expenses incurred or to be incurred in connection with the project were also taken into account so as to arrive at the correct net profit from this project. When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure the assessee is not liable to deduct tax at source hence no disallowance can be made (AY 2012-13 )

    Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 217 (Kol.) (Trib.)

  65. S.145 : Method of accounting – Cash system – Tax Deduction at Source – Mismatch of professional receipts appearing in Form No. 26AS – Credit for tax deduction at source was claimed – Corresponding professional receipts cannot be assessed to tax if such receipts were otherwise not assessable as income for the relevant year [S. 194A, 194J, 199 R.37BA, Form 26AS]

    Tribunal held that when the assessee following cash system of accounting due to mismatch of professional receipts appearing in Form No. 26AS, merely because credit for tax deduction at source was claimed corresponding professional receipts cannot be assessed to tax if such receipts were otherwise not assessable as income for the relevant year. Matter was remanded to the AO to recompute income in accordance with cash system of accounting followed by the assessee. (AY 2011-12)

    Dhruv Sachdeva. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 504 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  66. S.147 : Reassessment – Intimation – Bogus share capital – Share premium – Reopening for taxing Bogus share capital –Even in assessment u/s. 143(1) intimation, the AO is not entitled to reopen on the ground that the assessee has received “huge share premium” which was not “examined” by the AO. The AO cannot reopen in the absence of tangible material that shows income has escaped assessment. [S. 68, 143(1)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Tribunal held that even in a s.143(1) intimation, the AO is not entitled to reopen on the ground that the assessee has received “huge share premium” which was not “examined” by the AO. The AO cannot reopen in the absence of tangible material that shows income has escaped assessment. (ITA No. 1462/Mum/2017, dt. 26-9-2018) (AY 2009-10)

    DCIT v. Kargwal Products P. Ltd. (Mum.) (Trib)., www.itatonline.org

  67. S.147 : Reassessment – Amalgamation – AO issued notice for reopening only against amalgamating company and not against assessee company which was amalgamated/successor company, assessment made in name of assessee company was void [S.148, 292B]

    The Tribunal stated that notice for reopening under section 148 can be issued only against amalgamating company (NPPL) for being provided accommodation entries and not against assessee-company which was amalgamated/ successor company. As a result, the Tribunal held that assessment made in name of assessee company was void because, even after AO came to know that NPPL got amalgamated with assessee-company he did not care to issue section 148 and 143(2) notices to assessee-company which was sine qua non. Further, Tribunal held that notice issued in name of non-existent company was clearly jurisdictional defect and not mere procedural irregularity and thereby it was not curable defect and section 292B could not come to the rescue of Department. (AY. 2006-07)

    Dy. CIT v. Mani Square Ltd. (2017)190 TTJ 742/ (2018) 163 DTR 34 (Kol.)(Trib.)

  68. S. 153A : Assessment – Search- Share Capital and Share premium – Statement recorded – No incriminating material was found in the course of search – Order is bad in law [S. 68, 132, 132(4)]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the addition u/s 68 of share capital and share premium as unexplained cash credit, during search and seizure proceedings u/s. 132, was not based on incriminating material. The statements recorded u/s. 132(4) could not constitute as incriminating material. Hence, in the absence of any such incriminating material additions made by the learned CIT(A) in the 153A proceedings, would be void ab-initio. Followed PCIT v. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (Delhi) (HC) (AY 2013-14)

    Hindustan Aqua Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 195 TTJ 76 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  69. S.153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search and seizure – Satisfaction note is not available – Assessment is held to be bad in law [S.153A]

    The satisfaction of the AO of the person in respect of whom the search was conducted to the effect that relates to a person other than person referred to in S. 153A, is a sine qua non. In this case, no satisfaction note by the AO of the person in respect of whom the search was conducted was furnished by the Department despite categorical directions. Accordingly the order passed is held to be bad in law. (AY 2008 -09)

    Avalanche Reality P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 68 ITR 79 (SN) (Indore)(Trib.)

  70. S.153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search and seizure – Issue of notice is mandatory – The amendment in S.153C by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from April 1, 2017 to the effect that the block period for the person in respect of whom the search was conducted as well as the “other person” would be the same six assessment years immediately preceding the year of search was prospective in nature – Order is held to be bad in law [S.132 , 153B(1)(b)]

    Tribunal held that the search was conducted on the K group of cases on November 9, 2011. The impounded documents had been received by the AO on August 29, 2013. The satisfaction note u/s. 153C had been recorded on October 3, 2013. The AO passed the assessment order u/s. 153B(1)(b) considering the AY 2012-13 to be the year of search. However, the first proviso to S.153C of the Act provides that the six assessment years for which assessments or reassessments could be made u/s. 153C would have to be construed with reference to the date of handing over of the assets or documents to the AO of the assessee. Therefore, the AY 2014-15 would be the year of search and the six assessment years u/s. 153C of Act in the case of assessee would be assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14. However, the AO had not issued any notice u/s. 153C before initiating the proceedings against the assessee. The amendment in S.153C by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from April 1, 2017 to the effect that the block period for the person in respect of whom the search was conducted as well as the “other person” would be the same six assessment years immediately preceding the year of search was prospective in nature. The AO, therefore, should have framed the assessment u/s. 153C in the case of the assessee and at the time of initiating the proceeding against the assessee, issued notice u/s. 153C which had not been done in this case. The issue of notice u/s. 153C was mandatory and a condition precedent for taking action against the assessee u/s. 153C. Accordingly the assessment is illegal and bad in law. (AY 2012-13)

    BNB Investment and Properties Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 68 ITR 567 (Delhi)(Trib.)

  71. S.153D : Assessment – Search –Income of any other person – Approval – Joint Commissioner Approved – Draft Assessment order – Letter requesting grant & grant of approval within a day – Joint Commissioner approved in mechanical manner – Approval in haste – Not proper – Order is held to be bad in law [S.153C]

    The Joint Commissioner has given approval to the draft assessment order u/s. 153C. The letter requesting the grant of approval to the Joint Commissioner and the grant of approval was within a day. It was evident from the documents on record that the approval was given by the Joint Commissioner in a hasty manner without proper examination of the records as the records were in Jodhpur while the Joint Commissioner was camping at Udaipur. The Tribunal allowing the claim of the assessee stated that the Joint Commissioner had failed to grant approval in terms of S. 153D of the Act. The approval was held as mechanical and given in haste, being non sustainable. Hence, block assessment framed u/s. 153C without adherence to statutory approval S.153D, merits annulment. (AY 2005-06)

    Indra Bansal v. ACIT (2018) 164 DTR 185 / 192 TTJ 968 (Jodhpur)

  72. S.170 : Succession to business otherwise than on death – Capital gains – Conversion of private Limited company to LLP – de hors applicability of section 47A(4), would be subject to liability of assessee LLP as a successor entity [S. 5, 45, 47A(4)]

    Capital gains, if any, involved in transfer of capital assets on conversion of private limited company to assessee LLP, de hors applicability of S. 47A(4), would not be liable to be assessed in hands of assessee LLP as per S. 45 read with S.5, however, same would be subject to liability of assessee LLP as a successor entity. (ITA No. 3637/Mum/2015 & C.O No.2/Mum/2016, dt. 16-11-2018) (AY 2010-11)

    ACIT v. Celerity Power LLP (2019) 174 ITD 433/197 TTJ 45 (Mum.) (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

  73. S.198 : Deduction at source – Tax deducted is income received – Mismatch of receipts – Balance sheet item – Service tax wrongly treated as TDS by AO cannot be considered as income [Form 26AS] Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that the mismatch in receipts cannot be held as undisclosed receipts as they were balance sheet items. Further, it also noted that the assessee had submitted reconciliation statement between the service tax return and Form 26AS and there was no under-reporting of income. (ITA No. 6836/Del./2014 dt. 5-10-2017)(AY. 2010-11)

    DCIT v. G.E. Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 51 CCH 158 (2018) 63 ITR 337 (Delhi)(Trib.)

  74. S.219 : Credit for advance tax – Deduction at source – Advance received by firm – succession by company – Credit for deduction of tax at source should be allowed when the receipt or part of receipt recognised as income by company

    Tribunal held that when the firm is succeeded by a company credit for deduction of tax at source should be allowed when the receipt or part of receipt recognised as income by company. (AY. 2012-13)

    ITO v. Dreamax Infrastructure Developers (2018) 65 ITR 500 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

  75. S.221 : Penalty – Failure to pay self-assessment tax – amendment prescribing mandatory charge of interest – Amendment does not envisage penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax. [S.140A(3), 221(1)]

    The Legislature did not envisage that consequent to the amendment, the default in payment of self- assessment tax would hitherto be covered by the scope of s.221(1). s.221 remains unchanged, both during the pre and post amended s.140A(3) and even in the pre-amended situation, penalty u/s. 221 was not attracted for default in payment of self-assessment tax. Thus, without there being any requisite corresponding amendment to s. 221 in consonance with the amendments carried out in S..140A(3) with effect from April 1, 1989, the Department cannot impose penalty u/s. 140A(3) read with S..221(1) of the Act. (AY 2012-13)

    Balraj Prakashchand Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 62 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

  76. S.249 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Admitted tax as per return of income – Requirement of paying admitted tax before filing appeal is directory –When defect is removed, earlier defective appeal becomes valid. Accordingly the matter was remanded to CIT(A) [S.249(4)]

    Tribunal held that payment of admitted tax as per return of income before filing of an appeal is directory, therefore, when defect in appeal, being non-payment of such tax, is removed, earlier defective appeal becomes valid. Accordingly the matter was remanded to CIT(A). (AY 2013-14)

    Sushila Devi Malu (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 174 ITD 627 (Bang.) (Trib.)

  77. S.250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – power to admit additional evidence – Books of account and vouchers were produced before the AO – Commissioner (Appeals) can call for books of account, details and vouchers for examination – No violation of Rule 46A(4). [S.250(4) R. 46A]

    Tribunal held that The Commissioner (Appeals) had verified the details and the books of account and come to the finding that the assessee had maintained proper books of account and that there were no violation of provisions relating to tax deduction at source and correctly deleted the additions. (AY 2012-13 )

    ITO v. Jaidka Woolen and Hosiery Mills P. Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 216 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  78. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Book profit – Exempt income – two views possible – Revision is held to be bad in law [S.14A, 115JB, R.8D]

    The AO enhanced the suo motu disallowance made by the assessee. The Commissioner revised the order holding that the failure to include the sum in computing the book profit under the provisions of section 115JB rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P.) Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27 /154 DTR 241/188 TTJ 1 (SB) (Delhi) (Trib.) held that the view beneficial to the assessee was to be taken while deciding the issue in terms of the decision in CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC). Therefore the Assessing Officer had considered the issue during the original assessment proceedings and formed a view permissible under law that no disallowance relatable to exempt income could be made under section 14A read with Rule 8D while computing the book profits under section 115JB. The revision proceedings were quashed as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue (AY 2012-13 )

    Tata Sons Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 69 ITR 46 (Mum.) (Trib.)

  79. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Transfer pricing officer – Transfer pricing risk parameter, fell under para 3.2 of circular dated 10-3-2016 which required reference to TPO by Assessing Officer mandatorily – Revision is held to be justified [S.92CA]

    Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that transfer pricing risk parameter, fell under para 3.2 of circular dated 10-3-2016 which required reference to TPO by Assessing Officer mandatorily. Accordingly revision is held to be justified. (AY 2015 -16)

    Varian Medical Systems International India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 174 ITD 721 (Mum.) (Trib.)

  80. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Depreciation on tenancy rights – Allowed in original assessment – Legally permissible view – Revision and disallowance by PCIT – Mere change in opinion – Revision is bad in law [S. 32(1)(ii)]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the assessing officer has applied his mind at the time of passing the assessment order allowing the depreciation claim. The AO’s view was a legally permissible view. Hence, the original order cannot be liable to be visited with a revisionary order by the PCIT, having a different opinion. Accordingly the revision order was quashed. (Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) State Bank of India v. Asst. CIT (WP No. 271 2018 dt. 15-6-2018) (ITAT No. 3495/Mum/2018 AY 2013-14)

    Marie Gold Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (Mum.) (Trib.) (UR)

  81. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Debenture redemption reserve – Original Assessment u/s. 143(3) dt. 30-12-2011 – Reassessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 dt 28-12-2016 – Revision order dt. 26-3-2018 – Revision is barred by limitation [S.115JB]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that the grounds of revision, were not the subject matter of the reopening done under S. 143(3) r.w.s 147. Hence, the revision order passed by the PCIT, was barred by limitation. Followed Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 574 (Bom) (HC), CIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 74 Bom) (HC). Revision also quashed on change of opinion and merit. (ITA. No. 3530/Mum/2018/3531 dt 10-1-2019 (AYs 2009-10, 2010-11)

    Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd. v. PCIT (Mum) (Trib) (UR)

  82. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Cash credits – Share capital – AO had made enquiry by seeking information from Switzerland Tax Authorities through proper channel of FT & TR division of CBDT, for exchange of information so as to verify identity, source of funds and creditworthiness of holding company and its promoters – Revision is held to be not justified [S.68]

    Commissioner held that while completing assessment, AO had only verified identity of share applicant, however, he had failed to verify second and third limb of transactions, i.e., genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of foreign entity. Therefore he passed a revision order u/s. 263 setting aside assessment. On appeal Tribunal held that the AO had made enquiry by seeking information from Switzerland Tax Authorities through proper channel of FT & TR division of CBDT, for exchange of information so as to verify identity, source of funds and creditworthiness of holding company and its promoters and this information was made available by Swiss Authorities from financial statements of foreign company. Besides, assessee had explained source from where its foreign holding company had made investment which was assets received from its investors by way of subordinated and conditioned loan. Transaction cannot be regarded as bogus or sham transactions. Accordingly the revision order is set aside (AYs 2006-07 to 2010-11)

    Bycell Telecommunications India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 193 TTJ 565 /90 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi) (Trib.)

  83. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Delay of 565 days is condoned – Voluntary offer of income in revised return – Dropping of penalty proceedings – Commissioner cannot substitute his view in revision proceedings for assessing officer view for dropping penalty [S.254(1), 271(1) (c)]

    Tribunal held that when the assessees offered the income voluntarily for taxation and the source of acquisition of such jewellery was also explained before the AO as the gifts from relatives, friends and parents, which were accepted. After considering the explanation the penalty proceedings were dropped. The view taken by the AO for dropping the penalty proceeding initiated was one of the possible views supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in substituting his view for that of the AO in dropping the penalty proceeding. (AY 2012-13)

    S. Ashok Kumar v. ACIT (2018) 64 ITR 57 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

  84. S.251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Once appeal is filed the said appeal cannot be withdrawn by the assessee- CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit – Delay of 116 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal was condoned [S. 246A, 250(4), 253, 254(1)]

    In the course of hearing before CIT(A) the assessee filed an application for withdrawal. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal stating that the withdrawal was without knowing the merit of the case and consequences. It was also contended that the CIT(A) is incompetent to dismiss the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. Appellate Tribunal following the jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) (HC) allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the matter to CIT(A) to decide on merit. Cases referred, CIT v. Raj Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria (1967) 66 ITR 443 (SC), M. Loganathan v. ITO (2013) 350 ITR 373 (Mad.) (HC). Tribunal also condoned the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. (IT No. 2366 /M/2018 dt 16-1-2019 (AY 2009-10)

    Deep Gears v. ACIT (SMC) (Mum.) (Trib.) (UR)

  85. S. 269T : Repayment of loans and deposits – Otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft – Provision is applicable in case of adjustment of loan towards sale of flats – Payment of interest in cash provision is not applicable. [S.271E]

    Tribunal held that provision is applicable in case of adjustment of loan towards sale of flats. However payment of interest in cash provision is not applicable. (AYs. 2012-13, 2014-15)

    Golla Narayana Rao. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 67 (Vishakh.) (Trib.)

  86. S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Charge is not specified – Inaccurate particulars of income – Levy of penalty on concealing particulars of income – Levy of penalty is held to be void ab initio
    – Explanation 5A [S.153C, 274]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that initiation of penalty on one ground and levy of penalty on another ground is impermissible in law. The AO had issued a notice u/s. 271(1)(c) on the grounds of ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’. The penalty order passed by the AO was on the grounds of ‘concealing particulars of income’. This was impermissible in law. Followed CIT v. Samson Perinchery (2017)) 392 ITR 4 (Bom) (HC) Tata Communications Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA. No. 3108/M/2016 dt. 21-2-2018. (Mum.) (Trib.) (ITA.No. 515/Mum/2016/514 & 513 dt. 19-12-2018)

    Kesar Realty Pvt Ltd. v. DCIT (Mum) (Trib) (UR)

    Kesar Housing and Development Co. v. DCIT (Mum.) (Trib.) (UR).

  87. S. 271AAA : Penalty – If no search has taken place in premises of assessee – All conditions laid down fulfilled – Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [S.132, 153C]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that the provision of S. 271AAA of the Act were not applicable to assessee since said provisions were applicable to cases where search was conducted under S. 132 of the Act and no search was carried out at premises of assessee. Further from the perusal of assessment order it was evident that assessee had surrendered income, in section 271AAA for non-levy of penalty under said provisions. (AY 2012-13)

    DCIT v. Jainco Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 458 /52 CCH 575 (Delhi)(Trib.)

  88. S.271AAB : Penalty where search has been initiated – Assessee recorded profits from sale of commodities in ‘other documents’ maintained in normal course, which were retrieved during search, penalty could not be levied [S.44AA(2), 132]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Tribunal held that since the assessee was not engaged in business or profession, he did not require to maintain books of account as per S. 44AA or S 44AA(2). Accordingly, the Tribunal held that since the impugned income was entered in ‘other documents’ maintained by assessee in normal course, which were retrieved during search, amount offered by assessee was beyond the scope of ‘undisclosed income’ defined in S. 271AAB. Accordingly the penalty was deleted. (AY 2013-14)

    Dy. CIT v. Manish Agarwala (2018) 167 DTR 369 / 194 TTJ 346 (Kol.)(Trib.)

  89. S.271AAB : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012 – Disclosure of undisclosed income – Disclosed manner of earning of income and paid tax along with interest – liable to pay penalty at 10% and not at 30% [S.132(4)]

    Tribunal held that when the assessee suo motu admitted undisclosed income and substantiated manner in which such undisclosed income was earned and had also paid tax together with interest, assessee is liable to pay penalty at rate of 10 per cent in terms of clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) but not under clause (c) at rate of 30 per cent of section 271AAB(1). (AY 2013-14)

    ACIT v. Vishal Agarwal. (2019) 174 ITD 125 (Kol.) (Trib.)

  90. S.271D : Penalty – Takes or accepts any loan or deposit – Business of civil construction – Adjustment of loan towards sale of flat – Provision is held to be applicable levy of penalty is held to be justified [S. 269SS, 269T]

    Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee that cash was towards capital contribution of various projects was not supported by any evidence. Tribunal held that provision is held to be applicable in respect of adjustment of loan towards sale of flats, accordingly the levy of penalty is held to be justified. (AY 2012-13, 2014-15)

    Golla Narayana Rao. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 67 (Visakh.) (Trib.)

Research Team

  1. S.10(34) : Dividend – Domestic companies – Tax on distribution of profits – Exemption cannot be denied to receiver of dividend, though the payer company had not paid tax on dividend distribution under section 115-O of the Act [S.(22)(d), 115-O]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that exemption cannot be denied to receiver of dividend, though the payer company had not paid tax on dividend distribution under section 115-O of the Act. (AY 2008-09)

    PCIT v. Kayan Jamshid Pandole (Smt.) (2019) 260 Taxman 32 (Bom)(HC)

  2. S.10B : Export Oriented undertakings – Entitled deduction in respect of ‘Deemed Export’ of goods made through a third party – The word ‘Export’ read with Exim Policy would certainly include ‘Deemed Export’ within the ambit of ‘Export Turnover’ [S. 10B(2), 10B(9A)]

    Assessee being a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for AYs in respect of deemed export of goods made by it during period under consideration through a third party. The Tribunal held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B in respect of its profits and gains from its business. The High Court relied on the order of its Co-ordinate Bench in the case of CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd. (2016) 127 DTR 327) (Karn.)(HC) and agreed with the view taken by the earlier Division Bench and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The High Court held that the word ‘export’ read with background of Exim Policy of Union of India would certainly include ‘Deemed Export’ also within ambit of ‘Export Turnover’ as explained in Explanation 2 of section 10B(9A). Further, there was no restriction imposed under section 10B(2) on quantum of deduction eligible under section 10B(1) with reference to export of goods manufactured by unit itself. Therefore, benefit of deduction under section 10B(1) cannot be restricted merely because the third party through which export has been made is not a 100% EOU. (AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12)

    PCIT v. International Stones India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 21 / 304 CTR 492 / 102 CCH 311 (Karn.) (HC)

  3. S.10B : Export oriented undertakings – Manufacture – Purchase of semi-finished garments and making them export worthy – Constitute manufacture – Entitle to exemption

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that purchase of semi-finished garments and making them export worthy, constitute manufacture hence entitled to exemption. Followed, Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 251 ITR 323 (SC) (AY. 2004-05)

    CIT v. A. P. Export. (2019) 410 ITR 168 (Cal.) (HC)

  4. S.10B : Export oriented undertakings – Manufacture – Cutting and polishing of diamonds amounts to manufacture – Entitled to exemption

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that the process of cutting and polishing diamonds is a complex one requiring specialised knowledge and expertise at every step. Rough unpolished diamonds on the one hand and cut and polished diamonds on the other differ completely in appearance, value and use. Thus this process of cutting and polishing diamonds brings into existence a new product which is a totally different marketable commodity. It amounts to manufacture. Accordingly, the assessee, who was engaged in the business of import of rough diamonds and export of finished diamonds after cutting and polishing them was entitled to exemption. (AY. 2001-02)

    J. B. Enterprise v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 138 (Guj.) (HC)

  5. S.11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Rent paid to trustees for using land and building – Fair market value – Rent paid to Trustees was not excessive considering the fair market value of the property – Exemption could not be denied [S.12, 13(3)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that rent paid to trustees for using land and building was not excessive considering the fair market value of the property, exemption cannot be denied. (AY 2010-11)

    CIT v. Bholaram Education Society (2018) 100 taxmann.com 508 / (2019) 260 Taxman 369 (Guj.) (HC)

    Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT v. Bholaram Education Society (2019) 260 Taxman 368 (SC)

  6. S.35D : Amortisation of preliminary expenses – Bank extending financial services is an industrial undertaking – Entitled to benefit

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee Court held that the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not define what is “an undertaking” or what is an “industrial undertaking”. Words used in a statute dealing with matters relating to the general public are presumed to have been used in their popular rather than their narrow, legal or technical sense. The expression “industrial undertaking” therefore, should be understood to have been used in section 35D of the Act in a wide sense, taking in its fold any project or business a person may undertake. Hence a bank extending financial services, would be entitled to amortisation of preliminary expenses in connection with the issue of shares for public subscription. (AYs. 1996-97 to 2006-07)

    Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 410 ITR 280 (Ker.) (HC)

  7. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Purchase of software – Held to be revenue expenditure

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that payment made for acquisition of software utilised for assessee’s existing business is revenue expenditure as the US Company has granted licence for use of software only in India for limited right of user, without any right to sub licence and the software requires upgradation or replacement.

    (ITA. No 544 of 2018 dt. 12-2-2019 (AY. 1998-99) (ITA No. 5161/M/2001 dt. 20-4-2016 )(AY. 1998-99)

    CIT v. Global Tele-Systems Ltd. (Bom.) (HC) (UR)

  8. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Consultancy Services – Foreign travelling expenditure of representative – Allowable as business expenditure

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that foreign travelling expenditure of representative for expansion of existing business is held to be allowable as business expenditure.

    PCIT v. Business Match Services (I) (P.) Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 190 (Bom) (HC)

  9. S.40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Reimbursement of expenses – Federation of International Hockey for arranging for provisional services connected with event of Hockey World Cup – Not liable to deduct tax at source [S.9(1)(i), 195]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that reimbursement of payments made by assessee to Federation of International Hockey for arranging for provisional services connected with event of Hockey World Cup such as travel, hospitality and provision of food etc., merely represented reimbursement of expenses not liable to tax in India, hence not liable to deduct tax at source. (AY. 2010-11)

    PCIT v. Organizing Committee Hero Honda FIH World Cup (2018) 100 taxmann.com 440/ 260 Taxman 180 (Delhi) (HC)

    Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Organizing Committee Hero Honda FIH World Cup. (2019) 260 Taxman 179 (SC)

  10. S.40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source Usance interest – Letter of credit discount charges – Merely in nature of reimbursement of cost incurred by suppliers under agreed arrangements and not interest – Not liable to deduct tax at source [S. 2(28A, 194A]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the assessee had opened LC in favour of its suppliers who had discounted same with bank. On account of early payment, bank had deducted some amount which assessee was liable to reimburse to its suppliers. The assessee had not made payment of interest to bank or to supplier and amount credited to suppliers’ account was towards reimbursement of expenses incurred by suppliers. Accordingly the provision of S.194A is not applicable and no disallowance can be made for failure to deduct tax at source. (AY. 2008-09)

    PCIT v. Plastene India Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 197 (Guj.)(HC)

  11. S.40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – The second proviso to S.40(a) (ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect [S.201(1)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that the second proviso to S. 40(a)(ia) is beneficial to the assessee and is declaratory and curative in nature. Accordingly, it must be given retrospective effect Followed, CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township P. Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 635 (Delhi) (HC). Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd v. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 226 (SC) (ITA No. 707 of 2016, dt. 7-1-2019)

    PCIT v. Perfect Circle India Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  12. S.45 : Capital gains – Business income- No distinction can be made whether borrowed money or own funds – Circular is binding on department – Consistency must be followed – Surplus from sale of shares is assessable as capital gains and not as business income. [S.28(i)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the circular makes no distinction whether the investments made in shares were out of borrowed funds or out of its own funds. that the Department was bound by Circular No. 6 of 2016 dt. February 29, 2016 ( 2016) 382 ITR 14 (St). However, the stand once taken by the assessee would not be subject to change and consistently the income on the sale of securities which are held as investment would continue to be taxed as long-term capital gains or business income as opted for by the assessee (AY. 2008-09)

    CIT v. Hardik Bharat Patel. (2019) 410 ITR 202 (Bom.) (HC)

  13. S.45 : Capital gains – Allotment letter – The allottee gets title to property on issue of allotment letter – the payment of instalments is only a follow-up action – Taking delivery of possession is only a formality – the date of allotment is the date on which the purchaser of a residential unit can be stated to have acquired the property and not on the date of registration of agreement – Assessable as long term capital gains – Entitled benefit of S.54F [S.2(14), 2(4). 54F]

    Affirming the order of Tribunal the High Court held that the allottee gets title to property on issue of allotment letter. The payment of instalments is only a follow-up action. Taking delivery of possession is only a formality. The date of allotment is the date on which the purchaser of a residential unit can be stated to have acquired the property and not on the date of registration of agreement. Sale consideration is assessable as long term capital gains. Followed CIT v. TATA Services Ltd. (1980) 122 ITR 594 (Bom) (HC) Circular No. 471 dt. 15-10-1986. (1986) 162 ITR 17 (St), Circular No. 672 dt. 16-12-1993 (1994) 205 ITR 329 (St) (ITA No. 1549 of 2016, dt. 22-1-2019) (AY. 2009-10))

    PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan(Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

    Editorial: Order of DCIT v. Shri Vembu Vaidyanathan, ITA NO.5749/Mum/2013 dt. 29-10- 2015

  14. S.54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Exemption is available though the construction of new property was not completed with in period of three years [S.45]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that; exemption is available though the construction of new property was not completed within period of three years as the delay was beyond control of assessee because construction was put up by builder. (AY. 2012-13)

    PCIT v. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) 260 Taxman 317 (Karn.)(HC)

  15. S.68 : Cash credits – Share capital – Share premium – Bogus share capital in form of accommodation entries – Directors were working as peons, receptionists etc., who have admitted that they have signed the documents as per direction of Mr. Tarun Goyal – Details were filed, however they have been not produced before the AO for examination – Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is held to be not justified [S.133(6)]

    Allowing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that evidence was collected in the course of search proceedings by the Investigation Wing it was found that companies were not carrying on any genuine business activities. Directors of these companies were employees of Mr. Tarun Goyal, who were working as peons,

    receptionists etc. Entries in the books were bogus. Modus operandi in such cases is well known, money is circulated by first depositing cash in the bank account of one such company, and thereupon it is transferred/circulated within the group companies before cheque is issued to the beneficiary. Directors in the course of search proceedings have admitted that they have signed the documents as per direction of Mr. Tarun Goyal. In response to notice u/s. 133(6) details were filed however the respondent- assessee had failed to produce directors of the companies, though they had filed confirmations, and therefore, were in touch with the respondent- assessee. The respondent-assessee had also failed to produce the details and particulars with regard to issue of shares, notices etc., to the shareholders of AGM/EGM etc. Accordingly Court held that the transactions are clearly sham and make- believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature. The reasoning is contrary to human probabilities. In the normal course of conduct, no one will make investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about the return and safety of such investment. The Tribunal’s order is clearly superficial and adopts a perfunctory approach and ignores evidence and material referred to in the assessment order. Appeal of the revenue was allowed. (ITA No. 49 of 2018, dt. 17-1-2019) (AY. 2008-09)

    PCIT v. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  16. S.68 : Cash Credits – Deposits from members of pubic – PAN numbers, address and particulars relating to cheques were furnished – Assessing Officer has not carried out any further enquiry – Deletion of addition by the Tribunal was held to be justified

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that all relevant particulars such as identity details relating to depositors, their PAN numbers, addresses, and particulars relating to cheques paid were furnished by the assessee, however the Assessing Officer has not carried out any enquiries under law from concerned banks, addition was held to be not justified. (AYs. 2009- 10, 2010-11)

    PCIT v. DLF Commercial Project Corporation. (2019) 260 Taxman 2/ 100 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is admitted; PCIT v. DLF Commercial Project Corporation. (2019) 260 Taxman 1 (SC)

  17. S.68 : Cash credits – Amount outstanding for six years – Addition cannot be made for the relevant accounting year

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that the loan of ₹ 15,00,000 had been continuously carried forward from the assessment year 2001-02. The loan did not relate to the assessment year 2007-08, even for the sake of argument, if it were treated to be fictitious loan addition cannot be made for the relevant year. (AY. 2007-08)

    Kohinoor Enterprises v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 153 (J&K) (HC)

  18. S.69A : Unexplained money – On money – Loose documents – There was no reliable or independent evidence to come to the conclusion that the assessee had accepted on – money in the sale of the constructed properties – Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is upheld

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that there was no reliable or independent evidence to come to the conclusion that the assessee had accepted on-money in the sale of the constructed properties. Accordingly the deletion of addition by the Tribunal is upheld .

    PCIT v. Nishant Construction (P) Ltd. (2019) 101 taxmann.com 179 / 260 Taxman 366 (Guj.) (HC)

    Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. Nishant Construction (P) Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 365 (SC)

  19. S. 73 : Losses in speculation business – Commodity trading – Off market transaction – The AO cannot treat losses from off market commodity transactions as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law if the transactions through the broker are duly recorded in the books of the assessee – The fact that the broker was expelled from the commodity exchange cannot be the criteria to hold the transaction as bogus

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the AO cannot treat losses from off market commodity transactions as bogus and inadmissible in the eyes of the law if the transactions through the broker are duly recorded in the books of the assessee. The broker has also declared in its books of account and offered for taxation. To hold a transaction as bogus, there has to be some concrete evidence where the transactions cannot be proved with the supportive evidence. The fact that the broker was expelled from the commodity exchange cannot be the criteria to hold the transaction as bogus. No material was broght to show that off market transactions are prohibited. (ITAT No. 78 of 2017 GA No. 747 of 2017, dt. 19-6-2018) (AY. 2009-10)

    PCIT v. BLB Cables and Conductors Pvt. Ltd. (Cal) (HC), www.itatonlne.org

  20. S.80IA : Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development – Commission agent of BSNL – Providing basic telecommunication services as defined u/s. 2(k) of TRAI Act, 1997 to its customers – Entitled to deduction [S. 80IA(4) (ii), Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 and TRAI Act, 1997]

    The assessee is acting as commission agent of BSNL, claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4)(ii) of the Act in respect of commission received by it. The AO held that nature of service done by assessee was of commission agent of BSNL and they do not render any telecommunication service thus, deduction claimed by assessee was denied. Tribunal held that the assessee was collecting commission charges and therefore, not a provider of telecommunication services. On appeal the Court held that the assessee is providing ‘basic telecommunication services’ in terms of relevant Rules in Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 and TRAI Act, 1997. Definition of ‘telecommunication service’, as defined u/s. 2(k) of TRAI Act, was a very wide and comprehensive definition, which includes services of any description, which was made available to users by means of any transmission or reception of signs, signals. definition being very wide and inclusive definition, it would encompass all types of services regardless of description and it would encompass type of service rendered by assessee and therefore, type of service rendered by assessee was a ‘basic telecommunication service’. Even official website of BSNL also shows EPABX as one of enterprises services provided by BSNL. Official website of BSNL also states that it permits telephone subscribers to use their own PABX/EPABX connected to BSNL network under certain commercial/technical conditions. Followed CIT Himanshu v. Shah (Guj) (HC)), (TCA No. 1098 of 2005 dt. 16-12-2014) and also referred ITO v. Quick Telecom (ITA No. 1654 of 2010 dt. 21-12-2009 (Mum.) (Trib.) (AY. 2003-04 2004-05) Sabdhagiri Telecom v. ITO (2019) 173 DTR 100 / 306 CTR 300 (Mad)(HC)

  21. S.80IA : Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development – Container Freight Station (CFS) – Eligible for deduction

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that Container Freight Station (CFS) run by the assessee is an infrastructure facility which is eligible for deduction. Followed Global Logistics Ltd. Continental Warehousing Corp. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (2015) 374 ITR 645 (Bom) (HC) Referred All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 137 ITD 287 (SB) (Mum) (Trib)(AYs 2008-09, 2009-10)

    PCIT v. JWC Logistic Park (P.) Ltd. (2018) 100 taxman.com 355 / (2019) 260 Taxman 92 (Bom.) (HC)

    Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. JWC Logistic Park (P.) Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 91 (SC)

  22. S.80IB : Industrial undertaking – Business of manufacturing Menthol – Profit from hedging Hedging activity of Mentha Oil has direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and profit derived from hedging is eligible for deduction

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that the assessee which is carrying on business of manufacturing Menthol, hedging activity of Mentha Oil has direct nexus with the manufacturing activity and profit derived from hedging is eligible for deduction. (AYs. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10)

    PCIT v. Jindal Drugs Ltd ( 2019) 306 CTR 241 (Bom) (HC)

  23. S.90 : Double taxation relief – Fees for technical services – Applicability of protocol – No separate notification required as protocol itself automatically applies of subsequent treaty with another OECD Treaty (Finland) DTAA-India – Netherlands [Article 12]

    Dismissing Revenue’s appeal, the High Court held that the protocol clause between India-Netherlands Tax Treaty provides for automatic application of subsequent treaty, to the India-Netherlands Treaty in hand and hence no separate notification was envisaged to be issued for enforcing such subsequent treaty with another OECD country (Finland) to facts of present case. On factual aspect (payment to be treated as FTS or not) matter remanded for re-consideration. (AYs. 2015-16, 2016-17)

    Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CIT (IT) (2018) 167 DTR 51 (Karn.) (HC)

  24. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Purchase and sale of shares – TPO was not justified in treating the transaction as loan and charging interest on notional basis – Corporate guarantee – Tribunal is justified in restricting the addition at 1% of guarantee commission as against addition of 5% of commission by the TPO [S.92B]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that TPO was not justified in treating purchase and sale of shares as loan thereby charging interest on notional basis. Court also held that the Tribunal is justified in restricting the addition 1% of guarantee commission as against addition of 5% of commission by TPO. Followed CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd. (2015) 58 taxmann.com 254 (Bom) (HC)(ITA No. 1248 of 2016, dt. 28-1-2019)

    PCIT v. Aegis Limited (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org 

  25. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Purchase of equity shares at value in excess of FMV is capital transition and does not give rise to any income taxability under Transfer Pricing provisions of shares purchased at value in excess of FMV – As the transaction of purchase of equity shares is a capital transaction and does not give rise to any income, the transfer pricing provisions do not apply. Chapter X is a machinery provision – It can only be invoked to bring to tax any income arising from an international transaction. It is necessary for the revenue to show that income does arise from the international transaction. S. 2(24)(xvi) & 56(2)(viib) are prospective. [S. 2 (24) (xvi) 56 (2) (viib)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that purchase of equity shares at value in excess of FMV is capital transaction and does not give raise to any income taxability under Transfer Pricing provisions of shares purchased at value in excess of FMV. As the transaction of purchase of equity shares is a capital transaction and does not give rise to any income, the transfer pricing provisions do not apply. Chapter X is a machinery provision. It can only be invoked to bring to tax any income arising from an international transaction. It is necessary for the revenue to show that income does arise from the international transaction. Ss. 2(24)(xvi) & 56(2) (viib) are prospective. (ITA No. 1685 of 2016, dt. 20-2-2019)(AY. 2010-11)

    PCIT v. PMP Auto Components Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.) (HC), www.itatonline.org

  26. S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Interest chargeable on delayed recovery of export receivables and expenses – LIBOR rates should be taken instead of SBI PLR [S. 144C]

    Assessee was engaged in the business of providing services of EPC in the field of petrochemical, oil and gas, fertilizers, instrumentation and electrical erection amongst others to its AE. TPO made an adjustment by charging notional interest on delayed recovery of export receivables from its AE. TPO applied interest rate at 12.25% i.e., SBI PLR. Tribunal held that interest chargeable on delayed recovery of export receivables and expenses from AE’s should be taken at LIBOR rates thereby relying on CIT v. Tata Autocomp Systems Ltd. (2015 374 ITR 516 (Bom.) (HC). Appeal of revenue was dismissed. (AY 2009-10)

    PCIT v. Technimont Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 377 / 304 CTR 145 / 102 CCH 305 (Bom.)(HC)

  27. S.92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Corporate guarantee – Arm’s length price of corporate guarantee cannot be determined on the basis of bank guarantee – Adjustment of 3% of the amount of guarantee given by the assessee is held to be not justified

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that arm’s length price of corporate guarantee cannot be determined on the basis of bank guarantee – Adjustment of 3% of the amount of guarantee given by the assessee is held to be not justified (Followed ITA No. 1302 of 2014 dt. 2-2-2017)(AY 2009-10)

    CIT v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ( 2019) 260 Taxman 249 (Bom) (HC)

  28. S.143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Defective return – On removing the defects in the return within time permitted relate back to the date of filing of original return – Limitation for issue of notice has to be from the date of filing of original return – Notice issued was held to be in valid [S. 139(9)]

    Allowing the petition the Court held that, on removing the defects in the return, within time permitted relate back to the date of filing of original return – Limitation for issue of notice has to be from the date of filing of original return. Accordingly the notice issued considering the date on which the defects were removed is held to be in valid. (WP No. 3501 of 2018 dt. 24-1-2019) (AY. 2016-17)

    Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd. v. UOI (Bom) (HC) (UR)

  29. S.143(3) : Assessment – Jurisdiction – When the Commissioner requires the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiries with respect to specific issues, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order must be confined to such issues only. [S. 263]

    Tribunal held that Commissioner’s revisional order required the Assessing Officer to examine certain aspects arising out of the return. He could not have travelled beyond such assessment and therefore, his action of making addition of ₹ 2-02 crores towards the entrance fee receipts was beyond the scope of revisional order. On appeal by the revenue, dismissing the appeal the Court held that when the Commissioner requires the Assessing Officer to carry out inquiries with respect to specific issues, the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass fresh order must be confined to such issues only, failing which we would be giving the power to the Assessing Officer to make reassessment. (ITA No. 1127 of 2016, 1276 of 2016 dt. 29-1-2019) (From the judgment of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1654/2012 dt 22-7-2015 (AY. 2005-06)

    PCIT v. Royal Western India Turf Club Ltd. ( Bom.) (HC) (UR)

  30. S.147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – If the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material – Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts – Reassessment is held to be not valid [S.148]

    Allowing the petition, the Court held that if the AO is of the opinion that the issue requires verification, it tantamounts to fishing or roving inquiry. He is not permitted to reopen merely because in the later year, he took a different view on the basis of similar material. Even if the question of taxing interest income under the DTAA was not in the mind of the AO when he passed the assessment, he cannot reopen if there is no failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts – Reassessment is held to be not valid. Ratio in decision in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34(SC) is explained and decisions of Bombay High Court in Rabo India Finance Ltd. v. Dy CIT (2013) 356 ITR 200 (Bom.) (HC), Multiscreen Media Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2010) 324 ITR 54 (Bom.) (HC), Sociedade De Formento Industrial P Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 339 ITR 595 (Bom.) (HC) is followed. (W No. 3342 of 2018, dt. 25-2- 2019.)(AY 2011-12)

    Precilion Holding Limited v. DCIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  31. S.147 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Bogus sales and purchases – Dealer in iron and steel – If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment – Reassessment to disallow entire amount is said to be bad in law – There is difference between revisional powers and reassessment. [Ss. 68, 69 148, 263]

    Assessment which was accepted u/s. 143(1) which was reopened on the ground that the purchase from hawala dealers on the basis of information received from Sales tax department. The AO after detailed verification made an addition of 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases. AO once again issued notice u/s. 147 on the ground that as per N. K. Proteins Ltd 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT the entire amount should have been disallowed. On writ allowing the petition the court held that as per settled law, if a claim or an issue had been examined by the Assessing Officer during the previous assessment proceedings, in absence of any material available to the Assessing Officer later on to reassess such income would be based on mere change of opinion and, therefore, impermissible. Court also observed, the Act recognises the revisional powers of the Commissioner to be exercised in case where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. However, the reopening of assessment is an entirely independent and vastly different jurisdiction and cannot be confused with the revisional powers of the higher authority. WP No. 3495 of 2018, dt. 17-1-2019) (AY 2011-12)

    Saurabh Suryakant Mehta v. ITO (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  32. S.147 : Reassessment – Delay in filing objections – If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom.) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks – A writ petition to challenge the reopening is not entertained [S.148]

    The petitioner has raised the objections before the Assessing Officer to the notice of reopening of the assessment on 14-12-2018. Objections were disposed off by the Assessing Officer on 28-12-2018. Since the last date for framing the assessment was fast approaching and the assessment would get time barred on 31st December, 2018, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 28-12-2018. The Petitioner has approached the Court challenging very notice of reopening of the assessment and also including the challenge to the order of reassessment as consequential to the main challenge to reopening of the assessment. Dismissing the petition the Court held that reasons for reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was supplied to the assessee on 14-9-2018. Without filing the objection the assessee approached the Court by filing the Writ Petition in November, 2018 after withdrawing the petition on 13-11-2018 the objection was filed on 14-12-2018. Dismissing the petition, considering the facts of the case the Court held that if the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose off the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom.) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks. Accordingly the writ petition was not entertained. (WP No. 284 of 2019, dt. 1-2-2019) (AY. 2011-12)

    Cenveo Publisher Services India Ltd. v. UOI (Bom) (HC), www.itatonline.org

  33. S.147 : Reassessment – Notice – Expenditure on contact charges – Allegation of charges were high – Reopening on issues examined in detail in the assessment is bad in law [S. 37(1), 69C, 148]

    Assessments were sought to be reopened on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on contract charges was unduly high. The assessee challenged the same by way of a writ. Quashing the reopening, the High Court noted that in an earlier AY, reopening on the same ground had been set aside by the Court. It was further noticed that in the course of the original assessment proceedings, detailed enquiry was done by the AO, after which the claim was allowed. In the circumstances, reopening proceedings were held to be bad in law. (AY 2010-11)

    Sky View Consultants (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 96 taxmann.com 419 / 304 CTR 834 (Delhi)(HC)

  34. S.147 : Reassessment – Non- resident – Limitation – Offshore trust – Amendment to S. 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired before amendment became effective – Notice issued in 2015 for the assessment year 1998-99 was quashed [S. 148, 149]

    The revenue relying upon his statement, issued impugned notice dated 24-3-2015 under section 148 seeking to initiate reassessment proceedings for assessment year 1998-99, on the suspicion that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The assessee contended that the limitation for re-assessment for assessment year 1998-99 had expired on 31-3-2005 and therefore, re-assessment was bared by limitation. The Assessing Officer contended that the proceedings were initiated within the extended period of 16 years from the end of the relevant assessment year by relying on section 149(1)(c), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 1-7- 2012. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that reassessment for 1998-99 could not be reopened beyond 31-3-2005 in terms of provisions of section 149 as applicable at the relevant time. The assessees return for assessment year 1998-99 became barred by limitation on 31-3-2005. The question of revival of the period of limitation for reopening assessment for assessment year 1998-99 by taking recourse to the subsequent amendment made in section 149 in the year 2012, i.e., more than 8 years after expiration of limitation on 31-3-2005, has been dealt with in M. Sharma v. ITO (2002) 254 ITR 772 (SC),
    accordingly the reassessment notice was quashed. (AY 1998-99) Brahm Datt v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 380/ 173 DTR 1 (Delhi)(HC)

  1. S.147 : Reassessment – Within four years – Intimation – Wrong recording of reasons – order on disposal of objections must deal with the objection – The mere fact that the return is processed u/s. 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice – Reassessment notice is quashed [S.143(1), 148]

    Allowing the petition the court held that the basic condition precedent of ‘reason to believe’ applies even to S.143(1) intimations. If the assessee claims the facts recorded in the reasons are not correct, the order on objection must deal with them. Otherwise an adverse inference can be drawn against the revenue. (WP No. 3344 of 2018, dt. 10-1-2019) (AY. 2011-12]

    Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  2. S.147 : Reassessment – Information supplied by investigation wing – Issue of notice to a wrong person – Even in a case where return is accepted without scrutiny, the AO cannot proceed mechanically and on erroneous information supplied to him by investigation wing. If AO acts merely upon information submitted by investigation wing and on total lack of application of mind, the reopening is invalid [S.143((1), 148]

    Allowing the petition the Court held that even in a case where the return filed by the assessee is accepted without scrutiny, as per the settled law, the Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer cannot proceed mechanically and also on erroneous information that may have been supplied to him. In fact, we note that in the present case the Assessing Officer had issued a notice to a wrong person. The impugned notice is, therefore, set aside. [WP No. 14490 of 2018, dt. 17-1-2019) (AY 2011-12)]

    Akshar Builders and Development v. ACIT (Bom) (HC), www.itatonline.org

  3. S.147 : Reassessment – Notice sent to old address – Duty of Assessing Officer to access changed Permanent Account Number database of assessee – Return filed showing new address – Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 144, 148, R. 127]

    Allowing the petition, the Court held that Rule 127(2) states that the addresses to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication may be delivered or transmitted shall be either available in the permanent account number database of the assessee or the address available in the Income-tax return to which the communication relates or the address available in the last Income-tax return filed by the assessee : all these options have to be resorted to by the concerned authority, in this case the Assessing Officer. On facts the Assessing Officer had omitted to access the changed permanent account database and had mechanically sent notices to the old address of the assessee. The subsequent notices under section 142(1) were also sent to the old address and the reassessment proceedings were completed on best judgment basis. The Assessing Officer had mechanically proceeded on the information supplied to him by the bank without following the correct procedure in law and had failed to ensure that the reassessment notice was issued properly and served at the correct address in the manner known to law. The reassessment notice issued under section 148, the subsequent order under section 144 read with section 147 and the consequential action of attachment of the assessee’s bank accounts were quashed. (AY 2010-11)

    Veena Devi Karnani. v. ITO (2019) 410 ITR 23 (Delhi) (HC)

  4. S.194H : Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage – Bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of commission paid to agent, it is bank charges for providing one of banking services – Not liable to deduct tax at source 

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that Bank guarantee commission is not in the nature of commission paid to agent, it is bank charges for providing one of banking services. Accordingly not liable to deduct tax at source. (AY 2010-11)

    CIT v. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 271 (Bom) (HC)

  5. S.220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Time available for filing appeal – Interim protection granted to the petitioners shall continue till the stay petitions in the tax case appeals are heard – During appeal time, if recovery proceedings are initiated, it would virtually render the appeal as infructuous. [S.260A]

    On Writ filed, the High Court held that it is settled legal principle that before expiry of appeal time, if recovery proceedings are initiated, it would virtually render the appeal as infructuous. Considering the fact that the said writ petitions were directed to be numbered and there was an interim stay order passed respective AOs of the petitioners insurance companies are directed not to initiate any recovery proceedings, as the insurance companies have filed appeals or are in the process of filing appeals under S. 260A of the Act. During appeal time, if recovery proceedings are initiated, it would virtually render the appeal as infructuous.

    Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. v. ITAT (2018) 305 CTR 891 /172 DTR 33 (Mad.) (HC)

  6. S.226 : Collection and recovery – Stay – AO cannot direct the Assessee to pay 20% of tax in dispute without application of mind [S.225]

    Allowing the petition the Court held that the AO has to apply his mind to the application for stay of demand and pass appropriate order having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Referred CBDT circular (F. No. 404 /72/93-ITCC) dt. 29-2 2016 and (F. No. 404 /72 /93-ITCC) (FTS : 284146) 31-7 2007 www.itatonline. org (WP No. 682/2019 dt. 22-1-2019 (AY 2011-12)

    Turner General Entertainment Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi (HC) (UR)

  7. S.226 : Collection and recovery – Arrest and Detention – Since the detenue did not co-operate with IT Dept in any manner and the TRO has followed all the due procedures before his arrest, there was no need to produce assessee before the Magistrate and no violation has been made under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed [R. 73, 76, CRPC. S.57 Art. 21]

    Dismissing the Assessee’s writ of Habeas Corpus, the High Court held that the detenue having ignored the notices issued to him under Rule 73 Sch. II and refused to pay the arrears of tax, and the TRO having followed the due procedure laid down under the provisions of the IT Act before directing the arrest for recovery of arrears of tax dues from him, no violation has been made under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed.

    Ayush Kataria v. UOI (2018) 305 CTR 110 / 170 DTR 408 (MP)(HC)

  8. S.244A : Refunds – Interest on refunds – Project competition method – Tax deduction at source – Tax deducted earlier years on the basis of payment – Income was shown in the year of completion of project – Assessment resulting to refunds – Entitle to interest from the date of payment to Govt. [S.199]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that since the revenue which has received the tax deducted at source from the payments to be made to the assessee and appropriate the same, would refund the same but the interest would be accounted much later when the return giving rise to the refund, is filed. Accordingly the assessee following the project completion method is entitle to interest on refund which was deducted earlier and income is shown in latter year. Followed Tata Chemicals Ltd. 363 ITR 658 (SC) ITA No 1230 of 2016 dt. 29-1-2019) [From the judgment of the Tribunal in ITA No 5306 / 2012 dt. 23-9 2015 (AY. 2005-06)]

    PCIT v. Kumagai Shanka HCCITOCHU Group (Bom.) (HC) (UR)

  9. S.254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties – Co-operative societies – Tribunal while considering the issue of deduction under S. 80P(2) (a)(i) to assessee suddenly shifted to Section 80P(4) and held that the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of S. 80P(4) without providing an opportunity to the assessee – Order of Tribunal is set aside [S.80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4)]

    On appeal, the High Court held that Tribunal while considering the issue of deduction under S. 80P(2)(a)(i) to assessee suddenly shifted to Section 80P(4) and held that the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of S. 80P(4) without providing an opportunity to the assessee. Hence, impugned orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the AO to examine the case in the light of the judgment in Totgars Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 228 CTR (Kar) 526 as well as CBDT Circular No. 6 of 2010, dt. 20th Sept., 2010 and to take a decision in accordance with law. (AYs. 2007-2008 to 2009-2010).

    Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 DTR 140 (Karn.)(HC)

  10. S.254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties – Failure of Appellate Tribunal to consider the question of jurisdiction is miscarriage of justice – Tribunal is required to reassess material and thereafter come to a logical conclusion – Order of Tribunal is set aside [S.147 ]

    Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that failure of Appellate Tribunal to consider the question of jurisdiction is miscarriage of justice. Tribunal is required to reassess material and thereafter come to a logical conclusion. Accordingly the order of Tribunal is set aside. (AYs. 1999-2000, 2002-03 to 2004-05 )

    Prameela Krishna (Smt.) v. ITO (2019 ) 261 Taxman 37 (Karn.)( HC)

  11. S.254(2) : Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Exposed to the odium of forum shopping – Order of Appellate Tribunal is reversed and cost of ₹ 1.5 lakh is imposed on the assessee

    Allowing the petition of the revenue, the Court held that the conduct of the assessee was speculative. It is not an uninformed litigant. It calculatedly chose not to question the rejection of its cross objection. Instead, waiting for the time till the two members who decided the first ITAT orders were not available and choosing to prefer the rectification application at a convenient time, the assessee no doubt technically was compliant, but stood exposed to the odium of forum shopping. Appellate Tribunal’s MA order reversed with costs of ₹ 1.5 lakh imposed on the assessee. (WP(C) 10846/2016 dt. 14-2-2019)

    PCIT v. N. R. Portfolio (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  12. S.254(2) : Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT – The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT

    Allowing the petition the Court held that the law that failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT. The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT. Considered, CIT v. Ramesh Electrical Co (1993) 203 ITR 497

    (Bom) (HC). (WP No. 3508 of 2018, dt. 3-1-2019) (AY 2011-12)

    Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

  13. S.254(2) : Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Non consideration of case laws cited by assessee during the hearing by Tribunal – Impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the assessee’s Miscellaneous Application as well as the Appellate order are set aside [S.254(1)]

    Allowing assessee’s Writ, High Court held that though Tribunal’s order renders a finding that no positive material was brought on record, there is no discussion whatsoever of the various case laws detailed in submissions which according to the petitioner clinches the issue in support of its case hence the Tribunal ought to have allowed assessee’s rectification application and considered the appeal taking into account the case laws which were already cited during the hearing of the appeal. (AY 2007-08)

    Amore Jewels (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 305 CTR 305 / 169 DTR 369 (Bom)(HC)

  14. S.263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Doctrine of merger – Relief granted by CIT(A) – Revision to consider eligibility of exemption is held to be not valid [S.10A(2)(ii) 10A(2) (iii)]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the revisional authority had exceeded his jurisdiction in invoking the provisions of section 263 when the assessment order with regard to the claim of deduction under section 10A had merged with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The contention of the revenue that the the doctrine of merger was not applicable because the assessment order and the appellate order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had dealt with only the restriction in the quantum of deduction under section 10A allowable and not with the eligibility of the assessee for deduction under section 10A in the light of the conditions under section 10(A) (2)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, was not tenable. (AY 2002-03)

    CIT v. S. R. A. Systems Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 392 (Mad.) (HC)

  15. S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – On excessive deduction and alleged excess stock – Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [S.10B]

    Dismissing the appeal of the revenue, the Court held that deletion of penalty by the Tribunal on account of excess deduction and alleged excess stock is held to be justified. (AY 2010-11)

    PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 161 / 102 CCH 315 (Karn.)(HC)

  16. S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not mentioning the specific charge – Grounds mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy requirement of law for levying penalty as charges levied in the notice were not specific – Deletion of penalty is held to be valid. [Ss. 132, 139, 153A]

    Assessee filed his return of income and including additional income in its return under section 153A. Assessment under section 153A was completed and AO during the course of assessment proceedings held that assessee had shown additional income due to search. AO initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) as the additional income was not declared in the return filed under section 139. Tribunal held that penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable in law as no specific charge was levied in penalty show cause notice. The High Court held that the ground mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific. The High Court placing reliance placed on the decisions of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Karn)(HC) and CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows

    (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC) held that the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of penalty imposed by the AO. (AYs. 2002-03 to 2007-08)

    PCIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia (2018) 168 DTR 327 / 304 CTR 103 / 102 CCH 303 (MP)(HC)

  17. S.271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Writing off capital work in progress – Penalty not sustainable on disallowance of assessee’s claim of loss – Legislature does not intend to penalise every person whose claim is disallowed

    Assessee wrote off capital work in progress as revenue loss. Assessee has disclosed all particulars of his income. AO disallowed claim without holding it to be bogus or false. Hence, genuineness of the loss is not a question under dispute. Assessee cannot be penalised for making a claim which in itself is unsustainable in law. Legislature does not intend to penalise every person whose claim is disallowed. Relied, CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. (AY 2009-10)

    PCIT v. Samtel India Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 322 (Delhi)(HC)

  18. S.276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Stay petition dismissed by Tribunal – Quantum appeal is pending – Launching of prosecution is held to be not justified – Prosecution was quashed and the assessee was discharged from the prosecution [S.276(2), Cr. PC S.498, Economic – Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974)

    Tribunal dismissed the stay application of the assessee. Assessing Officer launched the prosecution under S. 276C(2) for non-payment of determined tax. Assessee’s application for discharge was dismissed by Trial Court. On Criminal revision petition, allowing the petition, the Court held when department was aware of fact that assessee was agitating his case before Tribunal, which was final fact-finding body, there was no necessity to launch prosecution hurriedly because law of limitation under section 468 Cr. P.C. for criminal prosecution was excluded by Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. Court also observed that even otherwise, since it could not be concluded that assessee was wilfully evading payment of tax, impugned order passed by Trial Court was to be set aside and assessee was to be discharged from prosecution. (S.276C) (AY. 1998-99)

    Sayarmull Surana v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 397/ 173 DTR 338 (Mad.)(HC)

  19. S.276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Penalty appeal is admitted by High Court –When the Appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, there is no justification for the DCIT to threaten the assessee with prosecution – Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of the appeal. [S. 260A, 271(1)(c)]

    Allowing the notice of motion the Court held that once appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law, there is no justification for the Dy. CIT to threaten the appellant/applicant with any prosecution. Even if such prosecution is launched, the same shall not proceed till the pendency of this Appeal. The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) (ITA No. 785 of 2017, dt. 21-8-2017)

    Deepak Fertilizer and Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd v. ACIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

    Editorial. Also refer Suresh Company Pvt Ltd v. PCIT (ITA No 738 of 2016, Notice of Motion 84 of 2019 dt.25-1-2019) (Bom) (HC)

  20. S.292BB : Notice of demand to be valid in certain circumstances – Reassessment – Notice issued on dead person – Reassessment is held to be bad in law [Ss.147, 148]

Allowing the petition the Court held that notice was issued in name of assessee when she was no longer alive. Therefore, provisions of S. 292BB were not applicable. Accordingly the reassessment proceedings were quashed. (AY. 2010-11)

Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 412/173 DTR 251 (Delhi)(HC)

Research Team

  1. S.32 : Depreciation – Prior to insertion of Explanation 5 to S.32 of the Act – Optional and could not be thrust upon – Matter remanded

    On appeal by the Revenue, the Court held that High Court had not had the benefit of the decision in Plastiblends India Ltd v. Add. CIT (2017) 398 ITR 568 (SC), accordingly the matter was remanded to the High Court. (AYs. 2003-04 to 2006-07)

    CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC)

    Editorial : Order of Bombay High Court in CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (ITA Nos 1550/ 1592/1775 and 1881 of 2014 dt. 22-8-2017, 23-8-2017 is affirmed (2019) 410 ITR 468 (Bom) (HC)

  2. S.36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – When interest- free funds available with assessee are sufficient to meet investment, presumption is that investments in subsidiaries were out of interest free funds – No disallowance can be made

    Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that interest-free funds available with assessee were sufficient to meet investment. Presumption is that investments in subsidiaries were out of interest free funds accordingly no disallowance can be made. (AYs. 2003-04 to 2006-07)

    CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC)

    Editorial : Order of Bombay High Court in CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (ITA Nos 1550/ 1592/1775 and 1881 of 2014 dt 22-8 2017, 23-8 2017 is affirmed (2019) 410 ITR 468 (Bom)(HC)

  3. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Sharing of profit – The AO has to take into account the manner in which the business works, the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price are decided and determine what amount forms part of the profit – Whatever is the profit component is sharing of profit/distribution of profit and the rest is deductible as expenditure – Question of law is answered partly in favour of the revenue and partly in favour of the assessee – Matter is remitted to the AO to undertake the exercise as stated in the judgment after giving an opportunity to the respective assessees. [S.40A(2)]

    AO held that the difference between the price paid as per Clause 3 of the Control Order, 1966, determined by the Central Government, and the price determined by the State Government under Clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966 (and consequently paid by the assessee to the cane growers) can be said to be a distribution of profit, as in the price determination under Clause 5A of the Control Order, 1966, there is an element of profit and therefore the price paid to the cane growers determined by the State

    Government is excessive and therefore it is not deductible as expenditure, and is required to be included in the income of the assessee. AO also held that cane price paid to the cane growers over the SMP is disallowable as per Section 40A(2)(a) of the Act by observing that purchase price paid is excessive and unreasonable. On appeal CIT(A) allowed the appeal following SB in Dy. CIT v. Manjara Shetkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (2004) 91 ITD 361 (SB) (Mum.) (Trib.) (dt. 19-8-2004). Order of CIT(A) was affirmed by Tribunal. High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue following the decision in CIT v. Manjara Shetkari Sahakari Sakar Karkhana Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 191 (Bom) (HC). On appeal by the Revenue the Supreme Court considering the decision in Maharashtra Rajya Sahkari Sakkar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (1995) Supp. (3) SCC 475 the Court held that the AO has to take into account the manner in which the business works, the modalities and manner in which SAP/additional purchase price/final price are decided and determine what amount forms part of the profit. Whatever is the profit component is sharing of profit/ distribution of profit and the rest is deductible as expenditure. Question of law is answered partly in favour of the Revenue and partly in favour of the assessee. Matter remitted to the AO to undertake the exercise as stated in the judgment after giving an opportunity to the respective assessees. (CA. No 8890 of 2012, dt. 5-3-2019)

    CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC), www.itatonline.org

  4. S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Pre- Operative expenses – Expenditure incurred on estimate basis could be reduced from dividends
    – Transfer Pricing adjustment to consultancy charges – High Court has failed to independently evaluate the merits – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration [S.80M, 92C]

    Allowing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that on the questions whether pre- operative expenses are allowable as revenue expenses, whether the expenditure incurred on estimate basis could be reduced from dividends and whether transfer pricing adjustment to consultancy charges is justified or not, the High Court has failed to independently evaluate the merits of the departmental appeals. The matter was remanded to High Court for consideration afresh. (AYs. 2003-04 to 2006-07)

    CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 466 (SC)

    Editorial : Order of Bombay High Court in CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (ITA Nos. 1550/ 1592/1775 and 1881 of 2014 dt. 22-8-2017, 23-8-2017 is affirmed (2019) 410 ITR 468 (Bom)(HC)

  5. S.68 : Cash credits – Bogus share capital/premium – The assessee is under legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/ premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee – Mere mention of income tax file number of an investor is not sufficient to discharge the onus – Credit worthiness of the investor companies was not discharged – Order of AO is confirmed

    Allowing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that the practice of conversion of un- accounted money through cloak of Share Capital/Premium must be subject to careful scrutiny especially in private placement of shares. Filing primary evidence is not sufficient- The onus to establish credit worthiness of the investor companies is on the assessee. There was no explanation whatsoever offered as to why the investor companies had applied for shares of the assessee company at high premium of ₹ 190 per share even though the face value of the share was ₹ 10 per share. None of the so-called investor companies established the source of funds from which the high share premium was invested. Mere mentioning of the income tax file number of an investor is not sufficient to discharge the onus under S.68 of the Act. Credit worthiness of the investor companies was not discharged. The assessee is under legal obligation to prove the receipt of share capital/premium to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which, would justify addition of the said amount to the income of the assessee. (SLP (Cl) No. 29855 of 2018, dt. 5-3-2019)(AY. 2009-10)

    PCIT v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC), www.itatonline.org

  6. S.80DD : Medical treatment of dependent – Disability – Jeevan Aadhar – Amount of annuity under the policy is to be released only after the death of the person assured – Purpose is to secure the future of the person suffering from disability, after the death of the parent /guardian – Provision is valid in law – Considering the several difficult situations where the handicapped person may need the payment on annuity or lump sum basis even during the life time of their parents / guardians, it is for the legislature to take care of theses aspects and to provide suitable provision by making necessary amendments in S.80DD [Art. 14]

    Constitutional validity of the provision of S. 80DD was challenged on the ground that the entitlement of disabled dependent to get annuity or lump sum payment under LIC policy only after the death of the subscriber in respect of the policy named ‘Jeevan Aadhar’. Apex Court held that the provision is valid in law. Court also observed that, considering the several difficult situations where the handicapped person may need the payment on annuity or lump sum basis even during the life time of their parents / guardians, it is for the legislature to take care of these aspects and to provide suitable provision by making necessary amendments in S.80DD of the Act.

    Ravi Agarwal v. UOI ( 2019) 173 DTR 194/306 CTR 177(SC)

  7. S.80HH : Newly established industrial undertakings – Deduction has to be computed on the profits and gains without deducting therefrom ‘depreciation’ and ‘investment allowance’ & not from income as computed under the Act. S. 80AB is prospective. [S.80AB, 80I]

    Deduction has to be computed on the ‘profits and gains’, without deducting therefrom ‘depreciation’ and ‘investment allowance’ & not from ‘income’ as computed under the Act.
    S. 80AB is prospective. Motilal Pesticides (I) Pvt Ltd. v. CIT ( 2000) 243 ITR 26 (SC) is reversed) (CA Nos. 1581-1582 of 2005, dt. 1-3-2019) (AYs. 1979 -80, 1980-81)

Vijay Industries v. CIT (SC), www.itatonline.org

  1. S.80-IC : New Industrial undertaking – Special Category States – Initial assessment year – An assessee availing exemption of 100% tax on setting up of a new industry, which is admissible for 5 years, and either on the expiry of 5 years or thereafter (but within 10 years) from the date when these assessees started availing exemption, they carried out substantial expansion of its industry would become ‘initial assessment year’, and from that assessment year, assessee shall been entitled to 100 per cent deductions from that year

    Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that an assessee availing exemption of 100% tax on setting up of a new industry, which is admissible for 5 years, and either on the expiry of 5 years or thereafter (but within 10 years) from the date when these assessees started availing exemption, they carried out substantial expansion of its industry would become ‘initial assessment year’, and from that assessment year, assessee shall be entitled to 100 per cent deductions. (CIT v. Classic Binding Industries (2018) 407 ITR 429 (SC) is held not good law and reversed). (CA 1784 of 2019, dt. 20-2-2019)

    PCIT v. Aarham Softronics (2019) 102 taxmann.com 343 (SC), www.itatonline.org

  2. S.147 : Reassessment – Based on subsequent finding of DRP that there was no Permanent Establishment of the assessee in India – AO dropped reassessment proceedings – Order passed by High Court upholding validity of those proceedings was to be set aside [S.148]

    In course of a survey carried out at the premises of assessee’s Indian subsidiary, a non-resident company, AO found that the subsidiary constituted assessee’s PE in India. Assessment of non-resident assessee was reopened. Subsequently, DRP recorded a finding that there was no PE of assessee in India. AO passed an order dropping the reassessment proceedings. Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court which upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. (SLP Nos. 19655 to 19657, 19659 to 19661, 19667 to 19669, 19671 to 19673 of 2017 dt. 23-11-2017) (AYs. 2004-05, 2005-06).

    Principal Officer, Honda Access Asia & Oceania Co. Ltd. v. ADIT. (2018) 168 DTR 425 /255 Taxman 77 (SC)

    Editorial: Principal Officer, Honda Access Asia & Oceania Co. Ltd. v. ADIT(IT) (2014) 271 CTR 663/ 108 DTR 201/368 ITR 401/226 Taxman 204 (All) (HC) is set aside

  3. S.226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – Illegal Recovery – Strictures against DCIT – Adjustment of refund – High Court was not justified in its remarks against the DCIT and in issuing directions that (i) ‘deadwood’ should be weeded out (ii) personal costs of ₹ 1.5 lakh should be imposed (iii) adverse entry should be made in the Annual Confidential Report (iv) Denial of promotion etc. The directions were wholly unnecessary to the lis before the Court & are expunged [S.234]

    Claim of the refund was rejected by the AO on the ground that the refund had been adjusted against the tax demand relating to subsequent assessment years. In view of the fact that notice of demand under S. 156 for subsequent years was never served on the assessee order was set side with the direction to grant the refund and cost of ₹ 50 lakh was levied which was to be recovered from the salary of the Officer. Superiors were directed to take appropriate action. Revenue filed SLP before the Apex Court. Apex Court held that High Court was not justified in its remarks against the DCIT and in issuing directions that (i) ‘deadwood’ should be weeded out (ii) personal costs of ₹ 1.5 lakh should be imposed (iii) adverse entry should be made in the Annual Confidential Report (iv) Denial of promotion etc. The directions were wholly unnecessary to the lis before the Court & are expunged. (SLP No. 48031/2018, dt. 1-3-2019)

    Sanjay Jain v. Nu Tech Corporate Service Ltd. (SC), www.itatonline.org

    Editorial: Nu-Tech Corporates Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 183 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

  4. S.260A : Appeal – High Court – Delay of 362 days – Difference of opinion between two officers – Appeal was filed on the basis of legal opinion – Delay was condoned and remanded the matter to High Court to decide on merits – Cost of ₹ 1 lakh is awarded on department which is to be paid to the assessee

    Allowing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that main cause of delay was a difference of opinion between two officers of the Department on whether an appeal was to be filed from the order of the Tribunal, and ultimately a legal opinion was taken and it was decided to file the appeal. In view of this and having regard to the importance of the matter, the High Court should hear the appeal on the merits. Delay of 362 days was condoned subject to payment of cost of ₹ one lakh by the Department to the assessee, and remitted the matter to the High Court for decision of the appeal on the merits.

    CIT v. Progressive Education Society (2019) 410 ITR 370 (SC)

    Editorial : Order in CIT(E) v. Progressive Education Society (2019) 410 ITR 371 (Bom) (HC) is set aside.

  5. S.261 : Appeal – Supreme Court – Adjournment cannot be sought on the ground that Counsel is out of station – Opportunity was given to the counsel to argue the matter, however he could not argue the matter – The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution – Court also observed that under no circumstances, application for restoration shall be entertained

When the matter was called for hearing the counsel asked for an adjournment on the ground that the counsel for the appellant was not present in the Court as he was out of station. Court held that this was no ground to seek an adjournment. Accordingly the Court rejected the request for adjournment and asked the counsel to argue the matter. However the counsel present submitted that he did not know anything about the case. In these circumstances, the Court dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution. Court also made it clear that since the ground on which adjournment was sought was not found it to be a good ground, under no circumstances, application for restoration would be entertained. (CA Nos. 9142-9144 of 2010, dt. 7-2-2019)

        Ram Siromani Tripathi v. State of U.P. (SC), www.itatonline.org 

The year 2019 is moving fast and already we are in the month of March. The month is special as it is the closing month of the Financial Year and all the compliances, tax working, etc. has to be completed before 31st March. The tax professionals nowadays are busy throughout the year complying with the non- ending compliances of the Company’s Act, GST, Income Tax including TDS Returns, PF & ESI but particularly in the month of March we have to be extra cautious to oversee that all compliances in the current financial year have been complied with or not.

The Lok Sabha elections have been announced and schedule has been fixed in April and May, 2019 with the results to be announced on 23rd May, 2019. The results will be awaited by all as it will impact the economic scenario for India in the coming 5 years. It is expected that clear mandate with majority Government will result in economic growth and tax simplification. AIFTP asks all its members to definitely cast their vote and be a part of the electoral process and also motivate others to cast the vote. It is our duty for a vibrant democracy that we ourselves also motivate others to be a part of the democratic movement.

The new law promulgated by an ordinance i.e., Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance, 2019 is creating ripples. Different opinions on the applicability of it is being given by the tax professionals. It is expected from the Government to issue FAQs on it to clarify the doubts of the tax professionals as well as trade and industry. We are also sending a representation to the Government on it.

The Holi festival is being celebrated throughout the country and AIFTP wishes all a very Happy and colourful Holi. Holi depicts the triumph of good over evil. We expect that the spirit of Holi travels down to all and the good wins and the country moves forward for a new height in the next Financial Year. Again a very warm Holi wish to all.

Dr. Ashok Saraf
National President, AIFTP

Current Affairs

A) Post demonetisation cash deposit

The demonetisation was announced as a surprise on the night of November 8, 2016. Time was given up to December 31, 2016 to convert old currency notes of ₹ 500/- and ₹ 1000/-. During this period many unscrupulous people have taken advantage. Therefore, the CBDT’s internal note to the Senior Revenue officers highlighted taxpayers trying to build an explanation for cash deposits in their bank accounts post demonetisation by manipulating books of account and by filing revised/belated income tax returns. CBDT stated that based upon risk-assessment criteria, many of such cases have been selected for scrutiny and lists down seven instances which might indicate that assessee had filed revised or belated return merely as a cover-up to explain the cash deposits in bank accounts. CBDT listed down strategies for the assessing officers to be kept in consideration during verification and framing of assessments. CBDT also added that “manipulations made fictitiously merely to build an explanation for cash deposits in bank account(s), the revised return itself becomes questionable and therefore, the transactions disclosed in it which are over and above the original return are liable to be taxed under anti- abuse provisions of the Act.”

CBDT accordingly had listed down 7 red-flags which might indicate that assessee had filed revised or belated return merely as a cover-up to explain the cash deposits in bank accounts.

In cases related to substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period, vide letter dated November 15, 2017 the Board had issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for issuance of notice under section 142(1) of the Act, for filing it returns of income pertaining to assessment year 2017-18. In pursuance to which notice under section 142(1) was issued in around 3 lakh cases. Now, it has been reported that in around 87,000 cases out of these cases assessee concerned have not filed their return of income in response to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act.

Therefore, the CBDT has issued a standard operating procedure (SOP) on March 5, 2019 and it has asked the department to conclude this exercise by the end of the current financial year in March and “in any case” by June 30, 2019 by authorising the Assessing Officer to exercise the ‘Best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act, as the section essentially reads: “If any person fails to comply with all the terms of notice issued under section 142(1), the AO after taking into account all relevant material which the AO has gathered shall after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, make the assessment of total income or loss to the best of his judgment…”

The CBDT, on its part, assured the AOs that its technical and data mining arm will provide them with the addresses, bank accounts and transaction details of these 87,000 individuals and entities who have made “substantial cash deposits during the demonetisation period”.

The CBDT directive said that the AO should also make a “detailed analysis of past income tax returns, if available, to form an opinion regarding nature of transactions related to demonetization” while framing the assessment of these entities.

“On the basis of all material and evidence gathered by the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee would be duly provided with an opportunity to explain his/her case”

The CBDT also asked the AOs to “suitably” invoke section 133(6) (power to call for information) of the law to gather additional information about persons, transactions and fund flow from the banks where the “suspected transactions” took place.

“Such notices would be issued by the concerned AO after a careful appraisal of information at his disposal so that maximum possible additional information can be culled out,

The CBDT also stated that once the “ultimate beneficiary of a transaction has been established”, the AO should forward this to his counterpart who has jurisdiction over the entity under scanner.

The SOP flagged a special case saying if “entry operators” or hawala-trade like instances are found then the jurisdictional AO should “tax the unaccounted commission receipts” and unearth the nexus to catch tax evaders.

The range heads of the department have been asked to “monitor” the framing of the final assessment order of these entities.

Thus, this would help the Department/Revenue to bring new 87,000 cases in tax net. However the instructions of the Chairman of the Board dated February 26, 2019 has to be kept in mind that though maximising the revenue collection, is the immediate priority, the same has to be done “without any harassment or high handedness”

B) The Banning of Unregulated Deposits Scheme Ordinance, 2019

Acceptance of deposits by unincorporated bodies was always prohibited under Chapter IIIC of the RBI Act, 1934. In 2015, the Banning of Unregulated Deposits Schemes and Protection of Depositors’ Interests Bill, 2015 was introduced along with Report of the Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG) for identifying gaps in the existing regulatory framework for deposit-taking activities and to suggest administrative/ legislative measures including formulation of a new law to cover all relevant aspects of ‘deposit-taking’.

Now, it has turned into a reality with the President promulgating the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance, 2019 w.e.f. February 21, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BUDS Ordinance’).

The BUDS Ordinance has been enforced against need to regulate raising of money from public and ensuring that the same is allowed in a responsible, accountable and transparent manner and addressing the violations swiftly. Currently, several regulators monitor acceptance of public deposits, viz., RBI, NHB, Companies Act, etc. With the BUDS Ordinance in force, no person can accept deposits unless the same are either excluded from the meaning of deposits or fall under Regulated Deposit Scheme.

Exclusion from the meaning of a Deposit

In case of companies, the exclusions from the meaning of deposit shall comprise of those provided under Rule 2 (1) (c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014.

In case of non-banking financial company registered under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the expression “deposit” shall have the same meaning as is assigned to it in clause (bb) of section 45-I of the said Act.

While it is not specifically provided, exclusions provided by various regulators under respective guidelines, viz., by the RBI under Master Directions for Acceptance of Public Deposits (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2013 and by NHB under Housing Finance Companies (NHB) Directions, 2010 from the meaning of public deposit will hold good for respective entities.

However, in case of partnership firms, LLPs, proprietorship concerns, trusts, individuals or group of individuals, co-operative societies there is no definition of deposit or a specific exclusion list provided under any law. Accordingly, the definition and the exclusion list provided under the BUDS Ordinance will be applicable.

Observation

While it does not cover personal loans, amounts taken for personal use, BUDS Ordinance will surely have a huge impact on the manner of fund raising by unregulated entities. The punishment for any kind of offence is so serious that one would definitely want to avoid the same. This will definitely affect the huge network of informal/unorganised lending prevalent in the country. While this will result in protection of investors who get duped, it will also cause a lot of difficulty to the businesses that rely on such kind of funding.

H. N. Motiwalla
Editor