Domestic Direct Taxation

Recent Updates

1. CBDT notifies ‘Nodal Officer, PM-KISAN’ for furnishing specified information u/s 138
[Ref:-Notification S.O. 1065(E) [NO.12/2019 (F.NO.FEMA 20(R)5/2019-RB)], Dated 27-2-2019]

2. CBDT extends term of Task Force on Direct Tax by 3 months to May 31, 2019
[Ref:-Office Order [F.NO.370149/230/2017], Dated 28-2-2019]

3. Co’s fulfilling conditions of ‘Angel Tax Notification’ eligible for Sec. 56(2)(viib) relief
[Ref:-Notification no. SO 1131(E) [NO.13/2019 (F.NO. 370142/5/2018-TPL(PT))], Dated 5-3-2019]

4. CBDT notifies certain entities for the purpose of sec. 35 relief
[Ref:-Notification No. 17/2019[F.NO.203/10/2018/ITA-II], Dated 11-3-2019]

5. ‘Prayagraj Mela Pradhikaran’ notified under section 10(46)
[Ref:-Notification No. SO 1372(E) [NO.22/2019 (F.NO.300196/14/2019-ITA-I)], Dated 14-3-2019]

6. Govt. notifies ‘HUDCO’ for the purpose of TDS exemption u/s 194A
[Ref:-Notification No. SO 1399(E) [NO.26/2019 (F.NO.275/15/2018-IT(B)], Dated 20-3-2019]

7. B.S. Yedyurappa can’t be held guilty for making payments to BJP leaders on basis of xerox papers
[Ref:-PIB PRESS RELEASE, Dated 22-3-2019]

8. Income Tax Department carries out more search actions in the J&K Region
[Ref:-Press Release New Delhi, Dated 29th March, 2019]

9. CBDT notifies SEBI (Mutual Finds), Regulations, 1996 as ‘specified regulations’ for sec. 9A purpose
[Ref:-Notification No.1272 New Delhi, Dated 20th March 2019]

10. CBDT enables filing of revised return online for ITRs filed manually
[Ref:-https://www.taxmann.com//topstories/222330000000018199/cbdt-enables-filing-of-revised-return-online-for-itrs-filed-manually.aspx]

11. CBDT increases tax free gratuity limit from Rs. 10 lakh to Rs. 20 lakh
[Ref:-Notification No. SO 1213(E) New Delhi, Dated 8th March 2019]

Recent Judicial Pronouncements

Recent Judicial Pronouncement

1. HC allowed condonation of delay as refund of TDS wasn’t claimed due to mistake of auditor
[Ref:-G.V. Infosutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 397 (Delhi)]

2. Filing of revised return for re-computation of deduction claimed under section 10A permissible: HC
[Ref:-Pr. CIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Delhi)]

3. Interest on refund allowed from year of tax deduction and not from year of filing of return if PCM method is followed
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. Kumagai Skanska HCC ITOCHU Group [2019] 102 taxmann.com 416 (Bombay)]

4. Banks are allowed to claim share issue expenses as preliminary expenses
[Ref:-Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 442 (Kerala)]

5. SC granted SLP against HC’s ruling refusing condonation of delay in filing of revenue’s appea
[Ref:-CIT v. Progressive Education Society [2019] 102 taxmann.com 402 (SC)]

6. No reassessment to disallow pension paid to retiring partner in accordance with partnership deed
[Ref:-Dy. CIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accounts [2019] 102 taxmann.com 443 (SC)]

7. SC remanded matter to SetCom to consider decision of waiving of sec. 234A/B/C interest
[Ref:-Kakadia Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 103 taxmann.com 53 (SC)]

8. No action could be undertaken u/s 153C if seized documents weren’t in name of assessee; SLP dismissed
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. Krutika Land (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC)]

9. Full value of consideration to compute capital gains u/s 45(3) is recorded value of assets on date of transfer: SC
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. Dr. D. Ramamurthy [2019] 103 taxmann.com 24 (SC)]

10. Issue of shares to director to comply with a covenant in loan agreement with bank couldn’t be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii)
[Ref:-Asst. CIT v. Subhodh Menon [2019] 103 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

11. No coercive action against payee if payer failed to deposit TDS collection with Govt.: HC
[Ref:-Pushkar Prabhat Chandra Jain v. UOI [2019] 103 taxmann.com 106 (Bombay)]

12. No concealment penalty if claim of section 11 exemption was rejected by AO; SC dismissed SLP
[Ref:-CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2019] 103 taxmann.com 82 (SC)]

13. Compensation paid by developers to allottees of flats for surrendering their rights is allowable exp.: HC
[Ref:-Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi)]

14. Notice to be issued in name of legal heir in case of reopening of assessment of deceased person: HC
[Ref:-Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asst. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay)]

15. No reassessment proceedings on account of non-recording of reasons by AO; SLP dismissed
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. V. Ramaiah [2019] 103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)]

16. Additional evidences filed by assessee to be admitted even if they weren’t placed before lower authorities
[Ref:-Dharmendra Sevantilal Shah v. ITO [2019] 103 taxmann.com 394 (Surat-Trib.)]

17. HC upholds constitutional validity of section 234E imposing fee for delayed filing of TDS statements
[Ref:-Biswajit Das v. UOI [2019] 103 taxmann.com 290 (Delhi)]

18. AO couldn’t dismiss application on plea that filing of appeal before CIT(A) not valid ground for stay of demand
[Ref:-Mrs. Kannammal v. ITO [2019] 103 taxmann.com 364 (Madras)]

19. CIT couldn’t dismissed assessee’s appeal summarily without giving detailed reasons: ITAT
[Ref:-Ms. Swati Pawa v. Pr. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi – Trib.)

20. Cost of acquisition of shares on conversion of FCCB is closing price of shares on NSE on date of conversion
[Ref:-Kingfisher Capital CLO Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 446 (Bombay)]

International Taxation

1. HC allowed condonation of delay as refund of TDS wasn’t claimed due to mistake of auditor
[Ref:-G.V. Infosutions (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 397 (Delhi)]

2. Filing of revised return for re-computation of deduction claimed under section 10A permissible: HC
[Ref:-Pr. CIT v. Oracle (OFSS) BPO Services Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 396 (Delhi)]

3. Interest on refund allowed from year of tax deduction and not from year of filing of return if PCM method is followed
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. Kumagai Skanska HCC ITOCHU Group [2019] 102 taxmann.com 416 (Bombay)]

4. Banks are allowed to claim share issue expenses as preliminary expenses
[Ref:-Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 442 (Kerala)]

5. SC granted SLP against HC’s ruling refusing condonation of delay in filing of revenue’s appea
[Ref:-CIT v. Progressive Education Society [2019] 102 taxmann.com 402 (SC)]

6. No reassessment to disallow pension paid to retiring partner in accordance with partnership deed
[Ref:-Dy. CIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accounts [2019] 102 taxmann.com 443 (SC)]

7. SC remanded matter to SetCom to consider decision of waiving of sec. 234A/B/C interest
[Ref:-Kakadia Builders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2019] 103 taxmann.com 53 (SC)]

8. No action could be undertaken u/s 153C if seized documents weren’t in name of assessee; SLP dismissed
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. Krutika Land (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC)]

9. Full value of consideration to compute capital gains u/s 45(3) is recorded value of assets on date of transfer: SC
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. Dr. D. Ramamurthy [2019] 103 taxmann.com 24 (SC)]

10. Issue of shares to director to comply with a covenant in loan agreement with bank couldn’t be taxed u/s 56(2)(vii)
[Ref:-Asst. CIT v. Subhodh Menon [2019] 103 taxmann.com 15 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

11. No coercive action against payee if payer failed to deposit TDS collection with Govt.: HC
[Ref:-Pushkar Prabhat Chandra Jain v. UOI [2019] 103 taxmann.com 106 (Bombay)]

12. No concealment penalty if claim of section 11 exemption was rejected by AO; SC dismissed SLP
[Ref:-CIT v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2019] 103 taxmann.com 82 (SC)]

13. Compensation paid by developers to allottees of flats for surrendering their rights is allowable exp.: HC
[Ref:-Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 334 (Delhi)]

14. Notice to be issued in name of legal heir in case of reopening of assessment of deceased person: HC
[Ref:-Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asst. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay)]

15. No reassessment proceedings on account of non-recording of reasons by AO; SLP dismissed
[Ref:- Pr. CIT v. V. Ramaiah [2019] 103 taxmann.com 202 (SC)]

16. Additional evidences filed by assessee to be admitted even if they weren’t placed before lower authorities
[Ref:-Dharmendra Sevantilal Shah v. ITO [2019] 103 taxmann.com 394 (Surat-Trib.)]

17. HC upholds constitutional validity of section 234E imposing fee for delayed filing of TDS statements
[Ref:-Biswajit Das v. UOI [2019] 103 taxmann.com 290 (Delhi)]

18. AO couldn’t dismiss application on plea that filing of appeal before CIT(A) not valid ground for stay of demand
[Ref:-Mrs. Kannammal v. ITO [2019] 103 taxmann.com 364 (Madras)]

19. CIT couldn’t dismissed assessee’s appeal summarily without giving detailed reasons: ITAT
[Ref:-Ms. Swati Pawa v. Pr. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi – Trib.)

20. Cost of acquisition of shares on conversion of FCCB is closing price of shares on NSE on date of conversion
[Ref:-Kingfisher Capital CLO Ltd. v. CIT [2019] 103 taxmann.com 446 (Bombay)]

Transfer Pricing

1. TPO cannot make adhoc deductions on the basis of man hour and cost of service per hour. TPO is bound to follow one of methods prescribed under section 92C(1) to determine Arm’s Length Price.
[Ref: CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v Dy.CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 388 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

2. TPO could not determine the ALP of corporate management fees as Nil on the basis that the assessee did not any benefit from the payment of said charges.
[Ref: Terex Equipment (P.) Ltd.v ACIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 418 (Delhi – Trib.)]

3. Company having huge brand value and intangible cannot be a comparable to company involved in providing ITES services to AE
[Ref: Maersk Global Service Centre India (P.) Ltd. v ACIT [2018] 100 taxmann.com 435(Mumbai – Trib.)]

4. ALP of corporate guarantee cannot be determined on the basis of bank guarantee
[Ref: CIT(LTU) v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2019] 101 taxmann.com 84 (Bombay)]

5. Assessee involved in providing highly technical services like asset reconstruction and management services cannot be compared with company involved in marketing support services
[Ref: Beam Global Spirits & Wine (India) (P.) Ltd. v Dy.CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 118 (Delhi – Trib)]

6. Assessee involved in providing ITES services could not be compared with company involved in KPO services
[Ref: PCIT v PTC Software (I) (P.) Ltd [2019] 101 taxmann.com 117 (Bombay)]

7. TPO could not determine the ALP of management services unit charges paid by assessee to its AE as Nil on the ground that these services were duplicative in nature.
[Ref: B.G. India Energy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v Dy.CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi -Trib.)]

8. Addition of notional interest could not be made to assessee’s ALP if the amount has been provided by assessee to enter into business transaction on its behalf to its AE
[Ref: PCIT v KSS Ltd [2019] 101 taxmann.com 357 (Bombay)]