Follow Us:



1. CBDT vide Notification dated 06th December, 2018 notifies the norms for conversion of Branch of Foreign Banks in India into Subsidiary Company.

[Notification No. 85/2018/F.No.370133 /34/2016-TPL]

2. CBDT vide Notification 06th December, 2018 further clarifies that no tax deduction at source u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be made in case of Senior Citizens where the amount of such income or the aggregate amount of such income credited or paid during the financial year does not exceed Rs. 50,000. [Notification No.06/2018/F.No. Pr. DGIT (s)/CPC (TDS)/Notification/2018-19]

3. CBDT vide Notification dated 18th December, 2018 provides the time limit for furnishing of report by constituent entity of an international group, resident in India, under sub-section (4) of section 286 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

[Notification No. 88/2018/ F. No. 370142/17/2018-TPL]

4. CBDT vide Notification No 74/2018 dated 25th October, 2018 prescribe the electronic filing of application in Form 13 for Lower deduction or no deduction u/s 197 and 206C (9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Further to this, CBDT allows to file application in Form 13 manually:

a. Non Resident Indians–till 31.03.2019

b. Resident Applicants–till 31.12.2018
[Press Release dated 24th December, 2018]

5. I-T notices to start-ups: DIPP approaches Revenue Department to avoid unnecessary harassment to the taxpayer. 

6. CBDT notifies India-Hong Kong DTAA. 

7. Malta and Singapore deposit their instruments of ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention. 

8. Qatar signs landmark agreement to strengthen its tax treaties.


9. SC dismissed the SLP filed by Revenue department and upheld the order of High Court that no assessment could be made in the hands of merged Entity. [Pr. CIT v BMA Capfin Ltd. 100 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (2018)]

10. SC dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and upheld the order of High Court for rejecting assessee’s rectification application on section 68 additions. [R. L. Traders v ITO 100 taxmann.com332 (SC) (2018)]

11. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling. Exemption available even if DPS made profits from its joint venture with satellite schools. [DIT v Delhi Public Schools Society 100 taxmann.com 80 (SC) (2018)]

12. SLP granted against High Court Ruling that income from letting out shops/stalls in shopping malls taxable as business income. [Pr. CIT v E City Real Estate (P.) Ltd. 100 taxmann.com 94 (SC) (2018)]

13.  SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where in order to prove genuineness of share transactions, assessee brought on record all relevant facts such as names, address and PAN of share applicants, it was thereupon duty of Assessing Officer to obtain separate confirmation from concerned parties if required, and, where he failed to do so, it could not be a ground to reopen assessment. [Dy. CIT v Orient News Prints Ltd. 100 taxmann.com 69 (SC) (2018)]

14.  Where High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal allowing assessee’s claim of depreciation on public roads treating same as building, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v GVK Jaipur Expressway Ltd. 100 taxmann.com 96 (SC) (2018)]

15. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order to delete addition made under section 68 in respect of trade advances on ground that said advances were adjusted against sales made in subsequent years, SLP filed against said decision was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Montage Enterprises (P.) Ltd. 100 taxmann.com 100 (SC) (2018)]

16. No sec. 68 additions if assessee proved genuineness of transaction of sale of shares resulting in LTCG. [Smt. Madhu Solanki v ITO 100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) (2018)]

17. No denial of exemption just because payer company didn’t pay DDT on distribution of dividends, hence, exemption would be allowed to the receiver u/s 10 (34) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. [Pr. CIT v Smt. Kayan Jamshid Pandole 100taxmann.com 284 (Bombay-HC) (2018)]

18. Assessee wasn’t entitled to interest on interest which was awarded as compensation ondelay of grant of refund. [Nima Specific Family Trust v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 262 (Gujarat-HC) (2018)]

19. Where reassessment proceedings were pending against assessee and audit report submitted by assessee was also on record, impugned notice issued by revenue under section 142(2A) directing assessee to get its accounts audited again, deserved to be set aside. [Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd. v Dy. CIT 100 taxmann.com 180 (Bombay-HC) (2018)]

20. 16 years amended time limit for re-assessment can’t be applied to assessments concluded before that amendment. [Brahm Datt v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi-HC) (2018)]

21. Revenue Department has rightly exercised discretion under section 143(1D) not to process the refund as the department has right to adjust the demands against the refunds. [Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 310 (Delhi-HC) (2018)]

22. HC slams AO for adopting cash accounting system if mercantile accounting system was consistently followed. [Ace Real Estate & Developers v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 228 (Bombay-HC) (2018)]

23. HC justified sec. 68 additions as assessee failed to explain huge cash sales only in 1 month during year. [J.M.J. Essential Oil Company v CIT 100 taxmann.com 181 (Himachal Pradesh-HC) (2018)]

24. Compensation awarded under Motor Vehicles Act or Employees’ Compensation Act in lieu of death of a person or bodily injury suffered in a vehicular accident, is damage and not an income and cannot be treated as taxable income. [National Insurance Company Ltd. v Indra Devi 100 taxmann.com 160 (Himachal Pradesh-HC) (2018)]

25. Where assessee engaged in re-financing of loan given for purchase of residential houses, disclosed all particulars relating to claim of deduction under sec. 36(1)(viii), mere fact that AO opined that since assessee was not directly engaged in providing long-term finance for construction of purchase of houses and thus assessee’s claim was inadmissible, could not be a ground to pass a penalty order under sec 271(1)(c). [Pr. CIT v National Housing Bank 100 taxmann.com 162 (Delhi-HC) (2018)]

26. HC confirmed sec. 14A disallowance towards dividend earned on specified securities purchased on RBI directions. [Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. v CIT 100 taxmann.com 41 (Calcutta-HC) (2018)]

27. Assessee couldn’t challenge constitutional validity of proviso to Rule 9A during pendency of appeal. [Satish Yashwant Kulkarni v UOI 100 taxmann.com 40 (Bombay-HC) (2018)]

28. Where Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings taking a view that computation of book profit in order of assessment was incorrect, since there was no new material on record to suggest that assessee was guilty of suppression, initiation of reassessment proceedings merely on basis of change of opinion was not justified. [Binani Industries Ltd. v Dy. CIT 98 taxmann.com 472 (Calcutta-HC) (2018)]

29. ITAT disallowed hedging losses as the assessee has failed to bring on record the contract entered into to guard against losses from price fluctuations. [Premier Industries (India) Ltd. v JCIT 100 taxmann.com 337 (Indore-Trib.) (2018)]

30. Amount received by the assessee, over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed, is liable to be assessed as income from other sources, hence, and won’t be taxed under Capital gain. [Asst. CIT v Mohinder Singh 100 taxmann.com 333 (Chandigarh-Trib.) (2018)]

31. Conversion of CCPSs into equity shares couldn’t be considered as transfer within meaning of section 2(47). [Periar Trading Company (P.) Ltd. v ITO 100 taxmann.com 263 (Mumbai – Trib.) (2018)]

32. 10% penalty leviable u/s 271AAB (1) (a) even on suo motu disclosure of undisclosed income & specifying its source of earning. [Asst. CIT v Vishal Agarwal 100 taxmann.com 283 (Kolkata – Trib.) (2018)]

33. Advance salary received by employee towards his household expenses couldn’t be considered as benami transaction. [APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR PBPTA v K. Visakh 100 taxmann.com 256 (PBPTA – AT) (2018)]

34. Deemed dividend can be assessed only in hands of a person who is a shareholder of Lender Company and not in hands of a person other than a shareholder. [Microfinish Valves (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 146 (Bangalore – Trib.) (2018)]

35. Bank statements aren’t books of account; sum credited thereon can’t be treated as unexplained cash credit. [Smt. Ramilaben B. Patel v ITO 100 taxmann.com 325 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) (2018)]

36. allowable if assessee was responsible for warranty towards engines supplied to Indian Air Force manufactured by Russian Company. [Indo Russian Aviation Ltd. v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com76 (Pune – Trib.) (2018)]

37. Provision of sec. 43B couldn’t be invoked with regards to duty & surcharge collected by state electricity board. [Asst CIT v Kerala State Electricity Board 100 taxmann.com 132 (Cochin – Trib.) (2018)]

38. Amendment to provisions of section 200A with effect from 1-6-2015 empowering Assessing Officer levying fees under section 234E has prospective operation and, therefore, Assessing Officer while processing TDS statements for period prior to 1-6-2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E. [Trimurty Buildcon (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT 100 taxmann.com 39 (Jaipur – Trib.) (2018)]

39. Karta was eligible to claim TDS credit wrongly deposited in his name if HUF hadn’t availed benefit of such TDS. [Ratanlal Biharilal Atal v ITO 100 taxmann.com 70 (Nagpur-Trib.) (2018)]

40. Where assessee-firm, in view of partnership deed which clearly laid down that no interest on capital and remuneration was payable to partners, did not pay any interest and remuneration to its partners, such interest on capital and remuneration were not to be excluded from amount of profit eligible for exemption under section 10AA. [Asst CIT v Mukta Enterprise 100 taxmann.com 44 (Surat-Trib.) (2018)]

41. Employee’s contribution deposited before due date of filing of ITR couldn’t be disallowed. [High Volt Electricals (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT 98 taxmann.com 471 (Mumbai – Trib.) (2018)]

42. Transaction involving conversion of a private limited company or unlisted public company to a LLP as contemplated in section 47(xiiib) is ‘transfer’, however, same on cumulative satisfaction of conditions (a) to (f) of proviso to section 47(xiiib) would not be chargeable to ‘capital gains’ under section 45. [Asst CIT v Celerity Power LLP 100 taxmann.com 129 (Mumbai – Trib.) (2018)]


43. Where TPO rejected ALP of cost allocated to assessee and made additions by stating that assessee failed to produce supporting documents/evidence to substantiate that services were rendered by AE, however, it was found that assessee’s allocation of expenses was based upon a global agreement between AEs and was supported by CPA certificate. ITAT set-aside TP additions made by TPO.[Jabil Circuit India (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com  165 (Mumbai – Trib.) (2018)]

44. Costplus method couldn’t be rejected merely because assessee used ‘PBIT’ terminology instead of ‘GP’ as PLI. [R.S. Software (India) Ltd. v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 164 (Kolkata – Trib.) (2018)]

45. Foreign exchange gains are required to be treated as part of operating profits. [Gateway Technolabs (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT 100 taxmann.com 147 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) (2018)]

46. 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. [Fresenius Kabi India (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 134 (Pune – Trib.) (2018)]

47. Noaddition of notional interest for delay in realization of debts from AE could be made when international transaction of exports of goods had been benchmarked on TNMM basis and same was duly accepted by TPO. [Gemstone Glass (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT 100 taxmann.com 5 (Ahmedabad – Trib.) (2018)]

48. No TP adjustment if AMP exp. was incurred without entering into any agreement with PepsiCo. [PepsiCo India Holdings (P.) Ltd. v Addl CIT 100 taxmann.com 159 (Delhi – Trib.) (2018)]

49. Marketprice of goods couldn’t be compared with FoB price in case of export of goods to AE. [Devansh Exports v Asst CIT 100 taxmann.com 151 (Kolkata – Trib.) (2018)]


50. The assessee, a Spain based company, engaged in real estate development activities in India; capital gain arising from sale of shares of various companies was not taxable in India by virtue of article 14(6) of India-Spain DTAA. [Dy. CIT v Merrill Lynch Capital Market 100 taxmann.com 281 (Mumbai – Trib.) (2018)]

51. Sum received by Canadian Co. for grant of license to use technology for internal purpose only wasn’t royalty. [ONGC v Dy. CIT 100 taxmann.com 265 (Delhi – Trib.) (2018)]

52. FTS should be taxable as per Article 7 in case there is no FTS clause in India-Philipines DTAA. [Dy. CIT v IBM India (P.) Ltd. 100 taxmann.com 230 (Bangalore – Trib.) (2018)]



1. CBDT issued a comprehensive circular providing guidance on TDS on salary

[Ref:-Circular No. 01/2019[F.NO. 275/192/2018-IT(B)], Dated 01-01-2019]

2. CBDT withdraws Circular no. 10/2018 Dated 31-12­-2018 on applicability of Section 56(2)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

[Ref:-Circular No. 02/2019[F.NO. 173/616/2018-ITA-I], Dated 04-01-2019]

3. Simplified Procedure to Startup – Approval for the purposes of Section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act 1961

[Ref:-Notification NO. G.S.R. 34(E) [F.NO. 5(4)/2018-SI], Dated 16-1-2019]

4. CBDT clarified prosecution notice issued only in case of TDS default amounting more than Rs 5 Lakhs. [Ref:-Press Release, Dated 21-1-2019]

5. CBDT notifies new Centralized Verification Scheme for issue of notice and processing of information u/s 133C of the Income Tax Act 1961

[Ref:-Notification No. S.O. 550 (E) [NO.5/2019 (F.NO.370142/22/2017-TPL)], DATED 30-1-2019]

6. CBDT redefines income-tax authority for purpose of section 133C of the Income Tax Act 1961

[Ref:-Notification No. G.S.R. 76(E) [NO.4/2019 (F.NO.370142/22/2017-TPL)], DATED 30-1-2019]

7. Official assignee is required to compute tax and file ITR in status of ‘artificial juridical person’: CBDT

[Ref:-CIRCULAR NO. 4/2019 [F.NO.225/472/2018/ITA.II], DATED 28-1-2019]

8. Extending the due date for furnishing of report under section 286 (4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Income Tax Circular 9/2018 dated 26.12.2018

9. Exception from online filing of application under section 197 and 206C (9) in the cases of NRIs and resident applicants-Press release dated 24.12.2018


10.       OECD and the Netherlands discuss developments in international tax co-operation.


11.       The Cook Islands joins the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.


12.       Papua New Guinea signs the Multilateral BEPS Convention-24.01.2019


13.       The Faroe Islands and Greenland join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS-18.01.2019


14.       OECD, SARS and National Treasury continue partnership to strengthen tax co-operation.


15.       Belize signs landmark agreement to strengthen its tax treaties and Monaco deposits its instrument of ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention.



16. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order deleting addition made by Assessing Officer under section 69A on ground that there was no reliable or independent evidence to come to conclusion that assessee had accepted on-money for sale of constructed properties, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Nishant Construction (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 180 (SC)]

17. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order that rent paid by assessee-trust to a trustee for using land and building was not excessive and, thus, exemption could not be denied to assessee under section 11 by invoking provisions of section 13(1)(c), SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. [CIT v Bholaram Educational Society [2019] 101 taxmann.com 193 (SC)]

18. Delay in filing appeal to be condoned if identical issues were pending in earlier assessment years. [Anil Kumar Nehru v Asst. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 191 (SC)]

19. ITAT had power to consider application for recall of an order if appeal was decided ex-parte. [Dr. Gopal Dass Agarwal v CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 187 (Allahabad-HC)]

20. Sec. 80G renewal couldn’t be rejected on ground that income of trust wasn’t utilized for charitable purposes. [D.R. Ranka Charitable Trust v DIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 124 (Karnataka-HC)]

21. Constitutional validity of section 10(34) and section 115BBDA is challenged on ground that section 115BBDA does not have any ‘base’, and it makes hostile discrimination between a resident assessee and a non-resident assessee, as provision only applies to a resident assessee. The High Court quashed the writ observing that the proviso to section 10(34) gives primacy to section 115BBDA over section 10(34) and that clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBDA is clear and categoric as it stipulates that dividend income upto Rs. 10 lacs is not to be charged to tax @ 10% under section 115BBDA. Dividend income of less than Rs. 10 lacs continues to remain exempt under section 10(34). The High Court further observed that non-residents are liable to pay tax in the country of their residence.

Taxation regime applicable to non-residents need not be identical to that applicable to residents. [Rajan Bhatia v CBDT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 328 (Delhi-HC)]

22. Where purchase of property was delayed due to void compulsory acquisition by Appropriate IT Authority, date of purchase would relate back to original agreement, and not to date of execution of sale deed and benefit of cost indexation was to be provided from said date. [Amarjeet Thapar v ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 221 (Bombay-HC)]

23. Where in case of assessee-company having registered office at Mumbai and a branch office at Indore, ITO, Indore, issued a notice under section 143(2), in view of fact that assessee was filing e-returns from inception in Indore and, moreover, it had accepted jurisdiction of Assessing Officer at Indore in earlier assessment years, objection raised by assessee that jurisdiction in its case lay in State of Maharashtra, was rightly rejected by Chief Commissioner. [Frolic Reality (P.) Ltd v CCIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 311 (Madhya Pradesh-HC)]

24. Where during pendency of assessee’s appeal before Tribunal, his stay petition was dismissed and thereupon AO initiated prosecution proceedings under section 276C for non-payment of determined tax, in view 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. [Sayarmull Surana v ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 228 (Madras-HC)]

25. Where notice seeking to reopen assessment was issued in name of deceased assessee, since she could not have participated in reassessment proceedings, provisions of section 292BB were not applicable to assessee’s case and as a consequence, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. [Rajender Kumar Sehgal v ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi-HC)]

26. No disallowance under section 40A(3) could be made where taxable income of assessee was computed by applying gross profit rate. [Pr. CIT v Jadau Jewellers & Manufactures (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 217 (Rajasthan-HC)]

27. HC quashes initiation of reassessment on Bharti Infratel as it made full disclosure of demerger deal. [Bharti Infratel Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 285 (Delhi-HC)]

28. Where Assessing Officer did not adjudicate objection raised by assessee as to assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 on ground that it was not feasible to pass speaking order on objections and passed impugned order of assessment, assessment order and consequent actions would be illegal. [Raninder Singh v CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 210 (Punjab & Haryana-HC)]

29. Where assessee filed a revision petition raising claim for deduction of employees contribution to PF which was erroneously not claimed in return of income, in view of fact that all payments towards employee’s contribution to PF had been made before due date of filing of return, Commissioner was not justified in refusing to entertain assessee’s claim on merits. [Geekay Security Services (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 192 (Bombay-HC)]

30. Where assessee-University conducted examinations through various colleges affiliated to it, in absence of any material to establish that affiliated colleges/centres were rendering services of professional or technical nature in matter of conducting University’s examination, Tribunal did not commit any error in holding that tax was not deductable on such reimbursement of expenses incurred by colleges/centres under section 194J. [Pr. CIT v M.P. Biscuits (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad-HC)]

31. Where no claim under section 54F was ever made and no facts relating to such issue had been pleaded, proved or established before any of authorities below, such claim could not be entertained in appeal before High Court under section 260A. [Gurdeep Singh v Pr. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 257 (Punjab & Haryana-HC)]

32. Reopening of assessment not based on satisfaction of Assessing Officer but on audit objection regarding disallowance under section 14A could not be sustained. [Adani Infrastructure & Developers (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 256 (Gujarat-HC)]

33. CBDT in its circular No.471 dated 15-10-1986 has clarified that when an assessee purchases a flat to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) for which allotment letter is issued, date of such allotment would be relevant date for purpose of capital gain tax as date of acquisition. Further, it has been clarified by circular dated 16-12-1993 that if terms of schemes of allotment and construction of flats/houses by cooperative societies or other institutions are similar to those mentioned in Board’s Circular No.471, dated 15-10-1986; such cases may also be treated as cases of construction for purposes of sections 54 and 54F. [Pr. CIT v Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 101 taxmann.com 436 (Bombay-HC)]

34. Proceedings initiated on basis of notice issued under section 147/148 relying on judgment which had been overruled on date on which notice was issued were to be set aside being a serious misconduct on part of Assessing Officer. [Aravali Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Asst. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 235 (Rajasthan-HC)]

35. Where assessee was engaged in business of providing telecom services to both prepaid and postpaid subscribers, unutilized amount on prepaid card at end of year was to be treated as advance in balance-sheet and recognized as a revenue receipt in subsequent year, when talk time was actually used or was exhausted. [CIT v Shyam Telelink Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 218 (Delhi-HC)]

36. Where funds of assessee-trust were utilized for purchase of car in name of its trustee, there was violation of section 13(2)(b), read with section 13(3); however, denial of exemption under section 11 should be limited only to amount which was diverted in violation of section 13(2)(b). [CIT v Audyogik Shikshan Mandal [2019] 101 taxmann.com 247 (Bombay-HC)]

37. Assessee, an authorised franchise of BSNL, operating telephone exchange and providing basic telecommunication services to its customers in pursuance of agreement entered into with BSNL was entitled to deduction under section 80-IA(4)(ii). [Sabdhagiri Telecom v ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 245 (Madras-HC)]

38. Where jantri value/circle rate of land was not higher than sale price agreed by assessee with purchaser, deeming provisions of section 50C could not be invoked. [Dy. CIT v Nimish Kalyanbhai Vasa [2019] 101 taxmann.com 250 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

39. ITAT allows Sec. 54F relief on purchase of semi­finished apartment. [Dr. Kushagra Kataria v Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 359 (Delhi – Trib.)]

40. Where AO made addition to assessee’s income under section 69A in respect of unaccounted receipts reflected in loose papers seized in course of search, in view of fact that assessee could not earn gross receipts without incurrence of expenditure, it was only net profit embedded in unaccounted receipts which deserved to be added to his taxable income. [Dy. CIT v Mehul T. Desai [2019] 101 taxmann.com 234 (Surat-Trib.)]


41. Where assessee filed instant petition raising a plea that in terms of sub-section (2A) of section 92CA, jurisdiction of TPO to examine any transaction which came to his notice during course of proceedings though not referred to him under sub-section (1), was confined to an international transaction only, AO was to be prevented from passing any order until aforesaid issue was decided by court. [Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v UOI [2019] 101 taxmann.com 51 (Bombay-HC)]

42. ALP of management services unit charges paid to AE not to be taken as nil if services weren’t duplicitous in nature. [B.G. India Energy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi – Trib.)]

43. Where assessee paid certain amount to AE in order to enter into a business transaction on its behalf, it being not a case of financing AE, impugned addition of notional interest could not be made to assessee’s ALP. [Pr. CIT v KSS Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 357 (Bombay-HC)]

44. Giving a credit period was an integral part of transaction of rendering of software development services by assessee to its AE and, therefore, there could be no separate determination of ALP of international transaction of realization of sale proceeds with extended credit period as it was only incidental to transaction of sale. [Sunquest Information Systems India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

45. Where Indian entity had been remunerated at arm’s length price, then no further attribution of profit could be made. [ESS Advertising (Mauritius) SNC et Compagnie v Dy.CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 312 (Delhi – Trib.)]

46. Ad-hoc determination of arms length price by TPO under section 92 de-hors section 92C(1) would not be sustainable. [CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 388 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

47. Where TPO made addition of notional interest to ALP in respect of delay in realisation of payment from AE, in view of fact that in terms of agreement, there was no condition to charge any interest for delayed payments by AEs, impugned addition deserved to be set aside. [Metlife Global Operations Support Center (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 101 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi – Trib.)]


48. Where in terms of collaboration agreement entered into with HMCL Japan, lump sum payment as well as royalty paid by assessee to HMCL for giving licence and technical assistance in order to manufacture and sale of automobiles were regarded as capital expenditure, assessee would be entitled to claim depreciation thereon. [Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. v CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 222 (SC)]

49. Where assessee had paid commission to non­resident foreign agents who were carrying out activities outside India and non-resident agents did not have any permanent establishment in India, said payment was neither taxable, nor could be treated as FTS. [Dy. CIT v Mc Fills Enterprise (P.) Ltd. [2019] 101 taxmann.com 212 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)].



1. ITR filed by assessee in Kerala till Feb 28, 2019 to be deemed as filed within due dates

[Ref:-CBDT Order Under section 119(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 F.No. 225/15/2019/ITA.II] 

2. Norms for Angel tax relaxed; no tax on issuance of shares up to Rs. 25 crore

[Ref: Notification G.S.R. 127(E) Dated 19.02.2019] 

3. Section 87A rebate increased: no tax on income upto Rs. 5 lakh

[Ref:-Budget Speech-2019] 

4. Monetary limits prescribed for filing of IT appeals are made applicable to wealth tax appeals

[Ref:-Circular No. 05/2019 [F.NO. 279/Misc/M-84/2018-ITJ, Dated 05-02-2019] 

5. Aadhaar-PAN linking is mandatory now which has to be completed till 31.3.2019 by the PAN holders requiring filing of Income Tax Return.


6. Tax recovery from ‘Travel Khana’ isn’t on account of angel tax

[Ref:-Press Release Dated 08th Feb 2019]


7. OECD releases BEPS peer review reports on improving tax dispute resolution mechanisms and preventing treaty shopping


8. Mauritania joins international efforts against tax evasion and avoidance


9. Guernsey deposits its instruments of ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention


10. Armenia join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS


11. Finland deposits its instrument of ratification for the Multilateral BEPS convention



12. Where High Court held that once Commissioner exercised his revisionary powers then provisions of section 153(2A) would be applicable and, limitation would be one year from date of order being passed by Commissioner in revision petition, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. [Param Transport (P.) Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 328 (SC)]

13. Supreme Court affirms view of High Court that an assessee who sets up a new industry of a kind mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 80-IC and starts availing exemption of 100 per cent tax under sub-section (3) of section 80-IC (which is admissible for five years) can start claiming exemption at same rate of 100 per cent beyond period of five years on ground that assessee has now carried out substantial expansion in terms of clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of section 80-IC within aforesaid period of ten years in its manufacturing unit. The said previous year in which substantial expansion is undertaken would become ‘initial assessment year’, and from that assessment year, assessee shall been entitled to 100 per cent deductions of profits and gains. (d) Such deduction, however, would be for a total period of 10 years, as provided in sub-section (6). [Pr. CIT v Aarham Softronics [2019] 102 taxmann.com 343 (SC)]

14. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where Government gave grant-in-aid to a company wholly-owned by Government, facing acute cash crunch, to keep company floating, even though large part of funds were applied by company for salary and provident funds, grant received was capital receipt. [Pr. CIT v State Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 221 (SC)]

15. SLP granted against High Court ruling that where assessee-payer had failed to deduct tax at source under section 194C, it was liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) even if payee of such amounts had filed a nil return or a return showing a loss. [Punjab Infrastructure Dev Board v CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 224 (SC)]

16. Where High Court held that assessee was entitled to deduction under section 10B in respect of ‘deemed export’ of goods made by it through third parties, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. [Dy. CIT v Metal Closures (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 72 (SC)]

17. No interest disallowance if assessee had sufficient interest free funds to meet its investment in subsidiaries. [CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 52 (SC)]

18. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that receipt of deposits/loans received through journal entries is in breach of section 269SS. [CIT v Adinath Builders (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 57 (SC)]

19. Where registration of assessee trust u/s 12AA was cancelled for receiving a bogus donation but High Court by impugned order restored registration holding that one bogus donation would not establish that activities of trust are not genuine, it is held that reason assigned by High Court is erroneous and runs contrary to plain language of section 12AA(3) and, therefore, order of High Court is to be set aside and matter is remanded to appellate authority i.e. Commissioner (Exemptions) for consideration on merits. [CIT v Jagannath Gupta Family Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 34 (SC)]

20. HC slams AO for making disallowance of payment merely relying on statement of payer recorded during search. [CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 372 (Bombay-HC)]

21. Where in case of assessee rendering marketing support services to AE, Tribunal excluded five companies from list of comparables on account of functional difference, since reasoning recorded by Tribunal regarding functional dissimilarities between five entities and assessee were factual, no substantial question of law arose there from. [CIT v Philip Morris Services India SA [2019] 102 taxmann.com 376 (Delhi-HC)]

22. Where one of trustees had gone abroad for promoting business of assessee-trust, mere fact that he went on a tourist visa could not be a ground to conclude that no business was transacted and, thus, impugned disallowance of 50 per cent of foreign travel expenditure was to be deleted. [CIT v Swadeshi Internationals [2019] 102 taxmann.com 373 (Karnataka-HC)]

23. Where Assessing Officer issued a reassessment notice on grounds that provision for doubtful debts debited in P&L account was not added back while arriving at book profit under section 115JB, since regular assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) and there was no failure on part of assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts during regular proceedings, impugned reassessment notice was unjustified. [Raychem RPG (P.) Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 377 (Bombay-HC)]

24. Where there was ample evidence on record suggesting that assessee had made imports through his direct involvement by using import licence of RB and that RB was only entitled to service charges and further redemption fine was paid by assessee, assessee could not disassociate or divest himself from irregularities or illegalities committed in process of importing goods and penalty was levied for infraction of law committed by assessee. Under these circumstances, redemption fine was not allowable business expenditure. [Pr. CIT v Sushil Gupta [2019] 102 taxmann.com 409 (Bombay-HC)]

25. Where assessee, an agent of a Korean company being appointed to award purchase orders, claimed deduction of certain expenditure paid as commission to sub-agent and Tribunal having found that details of service rendered by sub-agent, details of expenses incurred by sub-agent for rendering services, etc., had not been placed on record, held that assessee was unable to discharge onus and establish genuineness of expenditure and disallowed expenditure, disallowance of expenditure was justified. [Alpasso Industries (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi-HC)]

26. Where Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice on ground that assessee had made transactions of huge amount in national/multi commodity exchange but he had not filed his return of income and assessee filed an objection that he had earned no income out of trading in commodity exchange and he had actually suffered loss and, therefore, he had not filed return of income, since, Assessing Officer had not looked into objections raised by assessee and proceeded ahead, impugned reassessment notice was unjustified. [Mohanlal Champalal Jain v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 293 (Bombay-HC)]

27. Where assessee, in return of income for assessment year 2011-12, claimed certain amount as interest income earned on fixed deposit and offered same to tax as part of its business income and Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim on ground that it did not carry out any business during year and passed assessment order under section 143(3) on 30-3-2014 and subsequently Assessing Officer had reopened said assessment on ground that interest income was required to be taxed as income from other sources and issued notice dated 26-3-2018 under section 148, impugned notice was hit by first proviso to section 147. [MSEB Holding Company Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 288 (Bombay-HC)]

28. Re-insurance arrangement by assessee insurance company with a foreign reinsurance company was not prohibited and; therefore, reinsurance premium paid by assessee insurance company to non-resident reinsurance company was to be allowed under section 37(1). [Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 292 (Madras-HC)]

29. Where Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim for deduction of expenditure during year and also imposed penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon it, since expenses as claimed by assessee were otherwise eligible and allowed in next assessment year and all details relating to these expenses were disclosed by assessee, imposition of penalty was to be set aside. [Granite Gate Properties (P.) Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 236 (Delhi-HC)]

30. HC allowed section 10AA relief as new unit set-up by assessee wasn’t formed by splitting-up existing business. [Pr. CIT v Macquarie Global Services (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 272 (Delhi-HC)]

31. Where assessee wanted to purchase a premises acquired by Central Government under section 269UD(1) and, for said purpose she challenged validity of Instruction, dated 19-7-1993, which prohibited department from entering into direct negotiations with any individual for disposal of property acquired by it, in view of fact that High Court had already given a clarification that in case said property was put to auction, it would be open for assessee to participate in same, no further relief could be granted and, therefore, instant petition seeking direction to department for immediate auction of property, being an abuse of process of Court, deserved to be dismissed. [Renuka (Sengupta) Malaker v Office of The Appropriate Authority [2019] 102 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi-HC)]

32. Where assessee sent documents to counsel to file appeal, but counsel had taken no steps, delay in filing appeal was to be condoned though there was some negligence on part of assessee in following up matter. [E-Governance Society v CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 222 (Himachal Pradesh-HC)]

33. Section 12AA(3) as amended with effect from 1-6-2010 to empower Commissioner to cancel registration granted to a trust, not applicable retrospectively and; thus, prior to that there was no inherent power in Commissioner to cancel registration. [Auro Lab. V ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 225 (Madras-HC)]

34. Where assessee had booked a flat far back in January, 1981 and till time, she sold her rights in flat in year 2005, completion of construction was nowhere in sight it was not a case of sale of residential property and thus assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F in respect of capital gain earned from sale of her right in said flat was to be allowed. [CIT v Kalpana Hansraj [2019] 102 taxmann.com 228 (Bombay-HC)]

35. For purpose of computing capital gains under section 45(3), value of assets recorded in books of firm on date of transfer would be deemed to be full value of consideration received or accrued as a result of transfer. [Pr. CIT v Dr. D. Ramamurthy [2019] 102 taxmann.com 330 (Madras-HC)]

36. Where pursuant to agreement to sell, possession of land was handed over by assessee and sale consideration was received, provisions of section 2(47) would apply and mere fact that contract was subsequently terminated by mutual consent, would not improve case of assessee to wriggle out of purview of section 2(47). [CIT v Harbour View [2019] 102 taxmann.com 185 (Kerala-HC)]

37. Where Assessing Officer had disallowed proportionate interest expenditure claimed by assessee and Tribunal remanded issue back to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and it also by an order dismissed assessee’s application for rectification and against impugned order assessee filed writ petition, since Assessing Officer had already passed consequential order pursuant to Tribunal’s remand order and had accepted assessee’s contention on allowability of interest expenditure, entire issue had become academic and cannot be challenged. [Piramal Glass (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 176 (Bombay-HC)]

38. Where Tribunal had deleted penalty imposed upon assessee for concealment of income on grounds that it had in quantum appeal reduced income of assessee assessed at Rs. 34.63 lakhs to NIL and assessee had suffered loss in earlier years and subsequently Tribunal by an order dated 5-9-2018 recalled its previous order and posted penalty appeal for fresh hearing, aforesaid grounds were not sufficient to delete penalty and impugned order did not require any interference. [Sheetal Diamonds Ltd. v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 177 (Bombay-HC)]

39. Where assessee was engaged in development of land and Assessing Officer had reopened assessment of assessee for reasons that (i) on checking of record of assessee it was found that it was a builder and, therefore, to verify intelligence gathered by Intelligence Wing, it was necessary to carry out detailed inquiry, and (ii) it had developed a society land which according to information received did not contain any agreement, Assessing Officer wished to carry out a fishing inquiry and reopening of assessment could not be permitted for carrying out fishing inquiries. [Giriraj Enterprise v Asst CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 188 (Bombay-HC)]

40. Where sufficient opportunities were available to petitioner under Act of 1961 to make true and proper disclosure of foreign assets, however he failed to make true and full disclosure after search and seizure and also in Settlement proceedings he would be liable for violation of provisions of Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. It could not be said that, a retrospective effect had been sought to be given to Act of 2015 so far as assessee is concerned. Therefore, Prosecution under Black Money Act was justified if assessee failed to disclose foreign bank accounts. [Shrivardhan Mohta v UOI [2019] 102 taxmann.com 273 (Calcutta-HC)]

42 Provisions made for wealth tax not to be included in book profit for MAT computation. [CIT v Reliance Industries Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 142 (Bombay-HC)]

42 Lack of declaration in Form No. 10 regarding specific purpose for which funds were being accumulated by assessee-trust, would not be fatal to exemption claimed under section 11(2). [CIT (EXP) v Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purshottam Public Charitable Trust [2019] 102 taxmann.com 122 (Gujarat-HC)]

43 AO couldn’t apply Rule 8D just because interest free & interest bearing funds were used for making investment. [Pr. CIT v Shreno Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 129 (Gujarat-HC)]

44. Rule 8D cannot be invoked and applied unless Assessing Officer records his dissatisfaction regarding correctness of claim made by assessee in relation to expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. [Pr. CIT v Vedanta Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi-HC)]

45. Where assessee paid interest to sister concern on money borrowed and subsequently it earned interest income on Inter-Corporate Deposits (ICDs), since there was direct nexus between interest paid and interest earned, interest paid to sister concern was deductible under section 57 while bringing interest income to tax as ‘income from other sources’. [Pr. CIT v Jubilant Energy Nelp-V- (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 97 (Delhi-HC)]

46. No question of law arose if revisional order passed by CIT had kept all issues open for re-consideration by AO. [V.K. Bharathi V.K. Bharathi CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 55 (Karnataka-HC)]

47. 263 revision order couldn’t be passed on grounds other than mentioned in notice issued. [CIT v Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 48 (Bombay-HC)]

48. HC slams AO for rejecting claim for deduction of provision by treating it as contingent liability. [CIT v Grace Colonizers (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 53 (Rajasthan-HC)]

49. Where in pursuance to notice issued under section 153A, assessee failed to specify and substantiate manner in which undisclosed income was derived rather embarked upon mercy plea that he was making surrender to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, he was not entitled for benefit of section 271AAA(2) and, thus, impugned penalty order was to be confirmed. [Narsi Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 333 (Delhi – Trib.)]

50. Where assessee paid franchise commission to its holding company for providing business to assessee but failed to establish nature of services rendered by said company, addition to the total income of the assessee on account of shortfall in arm’s length price be made. [DRHL India Services (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 334 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

51. Assessing Officer could not reject assessee’s claim for set off of accumulated loss by merely maintaining that assessee did not comply with conditions laid down in section 72A but not specifying as to how those conditions were not met by assessee. [Asst CIT v ADM Agro Industries Dharwad (P.) Ltd. [2019] 102 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi – Trib.)]

52. Mumbai ITAT deleted over Rs. 2,000 crore of additions in Harshad Mehta Case. [Harshad S. Mehta v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 391 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

53. Compensation paid by assessee-company to Government, as per directions of Supreme Court, to conduct mining in area beyond its sanctioned lease area would be allowed as business expenditure; it was compensatory in nature and not a penalty. [NMDC Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 268 (Hyderabad – Trib.)]

54. For purpose of section 45(2), date of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade has to be determined either on basis of entry passed in books of account of assessee or intention of assessee to exploit capital asset as stock-in-trade for its business purpose. [Puran Ratilal Mehta v Asst CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 187 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

55. Auditor of company who signed tax audit report couldn’t value shares of company under rule 11UA. [Kottaram Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 183 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

56. Where assessee had sold leasehold right in a plot of land acquired by it by way of an additional compensation received for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land, belonging to her late father, since it was a right in plot of deceased father against which assessee was allotted leasehold right and same could not be considered as agricultural land transferred during year, consideration received on account of such transfer of leasehold right in land was assessable to tax under head ‘capital gain’. [Pyaribai K Jain v Addl CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 146 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

57. Date of holding property to be taken from date on which lease-cum-sale agreement holder paid entire consideration.[Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 145 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

58. Bank statements aren’t books maintained by assessee; no sec. 68 additions on credit found in it.[Amitabh Bansal v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi – Trib.)]

59. Activities in form of medical relief for patients and creating awareness about HIV and AIDS for purpose of its eradication are charitable activties falling into category of ‘medical relief’ under section 2(15). [India HIV/AIDS Alliance v CIT (Exp) [2019] 102 taxmann.com 134 (Delhi – Trib.)]

60. Share valuation report to be rejected if no scientific base was provided for Co’s projection report. [Innoviti Payment Solutions (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 59 (Bangalore – Trib.)]

61. No sec. 263 revision merely on ground that AO didn’t refer matter to DVO for valuation of property. [Jitindar Singh Chadha vPr. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 93 (Delhi – Trib.)]

62. Expenses being in nature of revenue exp. to be allowed despite different treatment in books of account. [Olive Bar & Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 98 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

63. Where assessee filed appeal before Tribunal with a delay of 107 days without showing that it had taken all possible steps to file appeal within prescribed time period and delay in filing appeal occurred due to factors which were beyond its control, appeal was to be rejected and, as a consequence, appeal was to be dismissed being barred by limitation. [Krishna Developers v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

64. No disallowance on cash purchase of ‘GUR’ from farmers as they didn’t have bank a/c. [Tum Nath Sha v Asst CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 56 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

65. Assessee is not entitled to benefit of section 54F in respect of investment made by assessee in purchasing capital asset (land) before period of one year prior to sale of another capital asset. [Parswanath Padmarajaiah Jain v Asst CIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 92 (Bengaluru – Trib)]

66. ITAT remanded matter back to AO as he failed to provide hearing opportunity before passing reassessment order. [Narendrakumar Kuvarjibhai Vadher v ITO [2019] 102 taxmann.com 161 (Surat-Trib.)]

67. In terms of technology license agreement entered into by assessee an Italy based company with its Indian AE effective from 1-04-2008, being covered by sub-clause (AA) of section 115A(1)(b), rate of tax on royalty recieved by assessee will be 10.50 per cent. [Piaggio & C.S.P.A. v DIT [2019] 102 taxmann.com 135 (Pune – Trib.)]

68. Agricultural land whether held as capital asset or stock-in-trade is covered under ambit of sec. 56(2)(vii)(b). [ITO v Trilok Chand Sain [2019] 101 taxmann.com 391 (Jaipur – Trib.)]

69. ITAT allowed deduction of membership fees paid by CA firm to JVB University to get students for internship. [Singhi & Co. v Asst CIT [2019] 101 taxmann.com 392 (Kolkata – Trib.)]


Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Search Post by Date
July 2024