1. Signing of Inter-Governmental Agreement for exchange of country by country reports between  India  and  the  United  States  of  America-Press  release  dated  27.03.2019.

2. 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]

3. 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]

4. 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

5.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]

6. ‘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

7. 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]

8. 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

9. Income Tax Department carries out more search actions in the J&K Region

[Ref:-Press Release New Delhi, Dated 29th March, 2019

10. CBDT notifies SEBI (Mutual Finds), Regulations, 1996 as ‘specified regulations’ for sec. 9A purpose

[Ref:-Notification No.1272 New Delhi, Dated 20th March 2019]

11. CBDT enables filing of revised return online for ITRs filed manually

12. 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]

13. India and Brunei sign Tax Information Exchange Agreement.


1. The Kingdom of the Netherlands and Georgia deposit instruments of acceptance or ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention.


2.Global Forum on tax transparency reveals compliance ratings for further seven jurisdictions.


3. Public consultation on the tax challenges of digitalization.


4. OECD and United Arab Emirates renew partnership to strengthen tax co-operation.


5. Public comments received on the possible solutions to the tax challenges of digitalization.


6. Cameroon and Morocco launch new South-South co-operation programme under the Tax Inspectors without Borders initiative.


7. Morocco joins the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.

[Ref:-Http:// -framework-on-beps-composition.pdf]

8. New Beneficial Ownership Toolkit will help tax administrations tackle tax evasionmore effectively.





1. Sec. 80HH deduction is available out of gross profit without deduction of dep. & investment allowance. [Vijay Industries v CIT [2019] 103 454 (SC)

2. Where assessee had taken loan from a bank and it instead of payment of interest liability accrued during year obtained further loan from bank and sought to adjust interest liability in said loan and further it claimed deduction of interest liability, Explanation 3C to section 43B was squarely applicable in facts of instant case and Assessing Officer had rightly disallowed deduction as claimed by assessee. [CIT v Gujarat Cypromet Ltd [2019] 103 346 (SC)] 

3. The provisions of section 142(2C), as they stood prior to the amendment whereby words ‘suo motu’ were inserted in sub-section (2C) of section 142 with effect from 1-4-2008 by the Finance Act, 2008, did not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction and authority by the Assessing Officer to extend time for the submission of the audit report directed under sub-section (2A) of section 142 without an application by assessee and the said amendment was intended to remove an ambiguity and is clarificatory in nature. [CIT v Ram Kishan Dass [2019] 103 414 (SC)] 

4. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order that in absence of any exempt income, disallowance under section 14-A of any amount was not permissible, SLP filed against said decision was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Oil Industry Development Board [2019] 103 326 (SC)]

5. Where High Court concluded that wherever appeal could not be decided by Tribunal due to pressure of pendency of cases and delay in disposal of appeal was not attributable to assessee in any manner, interim protection of stay could continue beyond 365 days in deserving cases, SLP filed against said decision was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Comverse Network Systems India (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 314 (SC)] 

6. Entire/whole amount of difference between Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) and Additional Price (SAP) fixed for sugarcane cannot be said to be an appropriation of profit, only component of profit worked out while determining final price can be said to be an appropriation of profit and rest of amount is to be considered as deductible expenditure. [CIT v Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd [2019] 103 57 (SC)]

7. Ex-Chairman’s health ailment was sufficient cause shown by appellant for condonation of delay of 224 days in filing appeals, High Court ought to have accepted same. [Aakash Lavlesh Leisure (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 103 248 (SC)]

8. SetCom rightly rejected application if assessee failed to offer any explanation about nature of exp. Claimed. [Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd. v ITSC [2019] 103 234 (SC)] 

9. Income from letting out shops in mall along with various amenities is taxable as business income. [CIT v Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 413 (Kerala- HC)] 

10. SC granted SLP against HC’s ruling refusing condonation of delay in filing of revenue’s appeal. [CIT v Progressive Education Society [2019] 103 163 (SC)]  

11. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order that in view of copies of invocies and challans, proof of payments, bank statements, transportation payments, vouchers for movement of goods etc, it could be concluded that purchase transactions between assessee and ‘D’ were not bogus or fraudulent and, thus, addition could not be made under section 69C, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. [CIT v Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. [2019] 103 179 (SC)] 

12. Where High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal deleting disallowance made under section 14A holding that explanation of assessee and amount offered to tax could not have been rejected by Assessing Officer in arbitrary manner, SLP filed against said decision was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Hero Corporate Service Ltd. [2019] 103 200 (SC)] 

13. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that 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] 103 24 (SC)]

14. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where seized documents were not in name of assessee, no action could be undertaken in case of assessee under section 153C and further entire decision being based on huge amounts revealed from seized documents not being supported by actual cash passing hands, additions under section 69C were not sustainable. [Pr. CIT v Krutika Land (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 9 (SC)]

15. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order quashing reassessment proceedings on ground that reasons recorded by assessing authority for reopening assessment were never communicated to assessee, SLP filed against said decision was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v V. Ramaiah [2019] 103 202 (SC)]

16. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that in case of sale of property, assessee was required to offer capital gain only in respect of amount actually received by him as per sale deed even though a part of sale consideration was also received by confirming party. [Pr. CIT v Lalitaben Govindbahi Patel [2019] 103 10 (SC)]

17. SLP dismissed against order of High Court holding that deduction under section 80-I should be given on profit without reducing deduction under section 80HH. [CIT v Hindustan Level Ltd [2019] 103 89 (SC)]

18. No SLP against order of HC deleting penalty on ground that assessee had made full and true disclosure. [Pr. CIT v Samir Suryakant Sheth [2019] 103 198 (SC)]

 19. Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order holding that interest earned by assessee on sums lent to contractor constituted its business income, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed.[Pr. CIT v Nabinagar Power Generating Co. (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 206 (SC)]

20. Where High Court confirmed penalty order passed by Tribunal rejecting assessee’s explanation that it had claimed deduction in respect of tax paid on basis of wrong advice given by Chartered Accountant, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. [Jivanlal and Sons v Asst CIT [2019] 103 208 (SC)] 

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

22. Where High Court refused to condone delay in filing revenue’s appeal and dismissed same being barred by limitation, in view of fact that main cause of delay was difference of opinion between two officers and ultimately legal opinion was taken and, it was decided to file appeal, it was opined that High Court should have heard appeal on merits and, therefore, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be granted. [CIT v Progressive Education Society [2019] 102 402 (SC)]

23.Where Settlement Commission passed an order under section 245D(4) making certain additions and waiving interest chargeable under sections 234A, 234B and 234C, matter was remanded back to Settlement Commission for deciding issue relating to waiver of interest payable under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C afresh keeping in view scope and extent of powers of Settlement Commission in relation to waiver of interest as laid down in two decisions of Supreme Court. [Kakadia Builders (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 103 53 (SC)] 

24. Where assessee received share capital/premium, however there was failure of assessee to establish creditworthiness of investor companies, Assessing Officer was justified in passing assessment order making additions under section 68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. [Pr. CIT v NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd [2019] 103 48 (SC)]

25. Where AO having rejected assessee claim for exemption under sections 11 and 12, passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for raising a false claim, in view of fact that assessee succeeded in quantum appeal and, thus, High Court set aside penalty order as well, SLP filed against said decision was to be dismissed. [CIT v Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [2019] 103 82 (SC]

26. Where High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal allowing weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) to assessee on account of expenses incurred for lunch, refreshment etc. of visiting scientists after treating same as expenses incurred for R&D activity, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. [2019] 103 87 (SC)] 

27. Where High Court upheld order passed by Tribunal allowing assessee’s claim for registration under section 12AA having regard to fact that assessee was constituted by Government for imparting training to various officers /officials involved in criminal justice system with no profit motive at all, SLP filed against decision of High Court was to be dismissed. [CIT v Institute of Correctional Adminstration [2019] 103 85 (SC)]


28. Where assessee against order of assessment filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed application before Assessing Officer for stay of recovery of demand and Assessing Officer dismissed application on plea that mere filing of appeal against assessment order was not a ground for stay of demand, since Assessing Officer had merely rejected application for stay by way of a non-speaking order, he was to be directed to pass orders de novo after hearing assessee. [Mrs. Kannammal v ITO [2019] 103 364 (Madras-HC)]

29. ICAI has jurisdiction to entertain complaint against CA for sexual harassment. [Lalit Agrawal v ICAI [2019] 102 466 (Delhi-HC)]

30. No reassessment after 4 years if assessee had duly disclosed facts of acquisition and transfer of asset. [CIT v Marhatta Chamber of Commerce Industries and Agriculture [2019] 103 74 (Bombay-HC)]

31. Issue pertaining to section 80-IC deduction could not be re-examined by Commissioner in proceedings under section 263 as Assessing Officer’s order on said issue had merged with Commissioner (Appeals) order. [Pr. CIT v Oil India Ltd. [2019] 103 339 (Gauhati-HC)]

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

33. Where assessee failed to place on record relevant material before Assessing Officer to prove creditworthiness and capacity of his nephew, who was a salaried person, to advance a gift of huge cash amount to assessee who was an affluent businessman, addition made under section 68 in respect of such gift amount was to be confirmed. [Narendra Kumar Sakaria v Asst CIT [2019] 102 473 (Madras-HC)]

34. HC justified in denial of sec. 54B relief by ITAT relying on spot inquiry report of income-tax inspector. [Rajiv Dass v Dy.CIT [2019] 103 192 (Delhi-HC)]

35. Where assessee received loan from two companies which were substantially involved in money lending business, Tribunal rightly concluded that proviso (ii) to section 2(22)(e) would apply to assessee’s case and addition of deemed dividend made to assessee’s income was to be deleted. [CIT v Bharat Hotels Ltd. [2019] 103 295 (Delhi-HC)] 

36. Purchase of jewellary in cash rightly disallowed as assessee failed to justify his compulsion for cash payment. [Natesan Krishnamurthy v ITO [2019] 103 342 (Madras-HC)]

37. HC directed revenue to not to pass penalty order during pendency of ‘Uber’ appeal against TDS demand. [Uber India Systems (P.) Ltd. v Jt. CIT [2019] 103 336 (Bombay-HC)] 

38. Banks are allowed to claim share issue expenses as preliminary expenses. [Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v CIT [2019] 102 442 (Kerala-HC)] 

39. Sec. 12AA registration couldn’t be cancelled just because society was engaged in propagating Christianity. [CIT v Emmanuel Bible Institute Samiti Dadwada, Kota [2019] 103 294 (Rajasthan-HC)]

40. Where assessee, a registered trust, filed return disclosing NIL income after taking benefit of section 11 and Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) accepting declared income and subsequently he reopened said assessment for reason that assessee had received sizable donation from one ‘H’, which was also a registered trust, and spent such sum on officers/directors of ‘H’ and claimed same as reimbursement of expenditure and such receipt was hit by section 13(3)(b), reopening of assessment was justified. [Hinduja Foundation v ITO [2019] 103 337 (Bombay-HC)]

41. In terms of Rule 127, when Assessing Officer issues reassessment notice, he is under a duty to access available PAN data base of addressee or address available in last income return filed by addressee. [Veena Devi Karnani v ITO [2019] 102 470 (Delhi-HC)]

42. Audit objection being only an information, reassessment notice based on said audit objection is not sustainable. [FIS Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 102 471 (Delhi-HC)]

43. Where assessee had not raised dispute regarding taxability of Government subsidy, received by it under a Government scheme, during entire settlement proceedings till settlement order was passed, assessee could not urge Commissioner to examine such an issue in exercise of revisional powers. [Mandhana Industries Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2019] 103 301 (Bombay-HC)]

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

45. Failure to attend proceedings can’t be a ground to reject application for condonation of delay. [Durgeshwari Hi-Rise & Farms (P.) Ltd. v CCIT [2019] 103 292 (Bombay-HC)] 

46. Where assessee firm decided to re-organise its business whereby couple of partners were retired and fresh partners were inducted but assets and liabilities relating to business remained with assessee-firm, it was a case of reconstitution of firm and thus, no capital gains could be said to arise under section 45(4). [G.H. Reddy & Associates v Asst CIT [2019] 102 399 (Madras-HC)] 

47. Where assessee raised a plea that addition made to its taxable income under section 68 in respect of bogus share capital should be restricted to a lower amount because said amount kept rotating in relevant year, in view of fact that amount in question was not returned or refunded, plea raised by assessee deserved to be rejected. [Alfa Bhoj Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 102 392 (Delhi-HC)] 

48. Delay in depositing tax under IDS, 2016 couldn’t be condoned on account of personal reasons. [Sadhana R. jain v CBDT [2019] 103 70 (Bombay-HC)]  

49. In case of assessee, a 100 per cent export-oriented unit, engaged in manufacture and export of garments, claim for exemption under section 10A was to be allowed in respect of income earned from sale of export quota and interest on margin money deposited for opening Letters of Credit. [Camiceria Apparels India (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 103 238 (Madras-HC)] 

50. Where director of assessee-company obtained cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 as loan from a financier and same was deposited by him in cash in bank account of company, merely because director took cash loans from financier, and deposited it in current account of assessee-company on very same day and assessee utilized it to pay salaries, rent and EMI commitments could never be a ground to be taken as a mitigating factor to escape from rigour of levy of penalty under section 271D. [Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. v Addl CIT [2019] 103 26 (Madras-HC)]

51. Income-tax Act prevails over Canon Law; Salary received by Nuns/Missionaries is taxable. [UOI v Society of Mary Immaculate (Tamil Nadu), Madras [2019] 103 333 (Madras-HC)]

52. Where assessee sold its entire sahreholding in its subsidiary UHEL to a third party and, AO took a view that it was a case of slump sale 2(42C), in view of fact that what was transferred were mere shares of assessee in UHEL and there had been no transfer of an undertaking of UHEL, such change in mere pattern of shareholding of UHEL would not make it a case of slump sale, and,thus, impugned order passed by AO was to be set aside. [Pr. CIT v UTV Software Communication Ltd. [2019] 103 12 (Bombay-HC)]

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

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

55. HC deleted additions as no order was passed by Rent Control Tribunal fixing higher rent of assessee’s premises. [Pr. CIT v Seth Properties [2019] 103 190 (Bombay-HC)]

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

57. Sec.10(23C)(vi) exemption can’t be denied if institution exists solely for educational purposes and not for profit. [Malco Vidyalaya Matriculation Higher Secondary School v CCIT [2019] 103 104 (Madras-HC)]

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

59. Addition made under Sec. 69A is justified where bills are manipulated to increase stock or reduce sales. [Clarity Gold (P.) Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2019] 102 421 (Rajasthan-HC)] 

60.Expenditure incurred by assessee-company towards repairs and renovation of its hotel properties such as dismantling mangalore tiles, laying laterite stones, laying plaster, plaster of paris and painting, waterproofing, replacement of tiles and plumbing was allowable revenue expenditure. [Pr. CIT v Goa Tourism Development Ltd [2019] 102 437 (Bombay-HC)]

61. Where Tribunal rejected assessee’s cross-objection and assessee did not appeal and when High Court decided revenue’s appeal in Revenue’s favour, assessee filed rectification application before Tribunal regarding earlier cross-objection, same would be barred by principle of finality. [Pr. CIT v N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 17 (Delhi-HC)]

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

63. No defence can be based on any right in regard to property held benami. [Rajeev Tandon v Smt. Rashmi Tandon [2019] 103 7 (Delhi-HC)] 

64. Where assessee filed appeal before High Court with a delay of 507 days and sought condonation of delay stating that ex-employee of assessee who received order of Tribunal put it in his drawer and left company without informing anybody about such orders and it was only about a month before filing of instant appeal when his substitute new employee found papers from drawer, there was no sufficient explanation for delay. [Vama Apparels (India) (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 102 398 (Bombay-HC)] 


65. In case of sale of flat it is date of allotment of flat and not date of giving possession of flat which has to be considered as date for computing holding period of 36 months. [Richa Bagrodia v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 73 (Mumbai – Trib.)] 

66. Compensation received for termination of construction of railway siding was capital receipt. [Dy. CIT v Rishabh Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 14 (Raipur – Trib.)]  

67. Where assessee-company had provided balance sheet of investor companies along with their profiles and subscriber companies themselves had provided bank statements and their respective PAN details, no section 68 addition was called for on account of increase in share application money. [Floursih Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 72 (Delhi – Trib.)]

68. No denial of sec. 54B relief if land sold by assessee was classified as agricultural land in revenue record. [Murtuza Shabbir Jamnagarwala v ITO [2019] 103 166 (Pune – Trib.)]

69. If under provision of section 4 an amount does not bear character of income and, hence, not chargeable to tax then same cannot be converted into an ‘income’ only because payer of sum deducts tax under misconception of law. [Administrator of Estate of Lt. Edulji Framroze Dinshaw v CIT [2019] 103 452 (Mumbai – Trib.)] 

70. Where assessee purchased shares as stock-in-trade for purpose of trading, mere fact that assessee incidentally received dividend on those shares as declared by Investee Company, no case was made out for invoking provisions of section 14A. [Nice Bombay Transport (P.) Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2019] 103 338 (Delhi – Trib.)]

71. Sum received by partner on retirement from firm is exempt from tax. [James P. D’Silva v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 167 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

72. Sec.10(23C) exemption was available if assessee was conducting skill training programmes for students. [Process-Cum-Product Development Centre v Addl. CIT [2019] 103 191 (Delhi – Trib.)]

73. ITAT remanded matter back to TPO for determination of ALP of royalty paid for use of ‘Vodafone’ trademark. [Vodafone India Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 103 390 (Delhi – Trib.)]

74. Sum received from sale of rights of ‘Technical Concept’ to safeguard website is taxable u/s 28(va). [Ashish Tandon v Asst CIT [2019] 103 315 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)]

75. Books of account couldn’t be rejected for one source of income while retaining same for other source. [Shiv & Company v ITO [2019] 103 341 (Ahmedabad – Trib.)] 

76. Law doesn’t restrict corporates to make gifts; no capital gain on shares gifted by NBFC to group concerns. [Jayneer infrapower & Multiventures (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 118 (Mumbai – Trib.)]  

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

78. No TDS was required on exp. recorded on estimated basis if assessee was following project completion method. [Bengal Peerless Housing Devet. Co. Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 298 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

79. Loss on account of premium paid to banks in order to be secure against Forex fluctuations isn’t speculation loss. [SC Johnson Products (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 64 (Delhi – Trib.)]

80. Payments to various artists participating in reality shows are liable for sec. 194C TDS & not sec. 194J TDS. [Malayalam Communications Ltd. v ITO [2019] 103 63 (Cochin – Trib.)]

81. No question of accumulation of income if trust had spent more than 100% of its income during the year. [Dy. CIT v Shree Surat Jilla Leuva Patidar Samaj Trust [2019] 103 395 (Surat-Trib.)]

82. Additional evidences such as ledger account, bank statement, contractor’s bills necessary to decide issue of unexplained investment in proper perspective to be admitted by Tribunal, even if the assessee failed to furnish these evidences earlier before lower authorities. [Dharmendra Sevantilal Shah v ITO [2019] 103 394 (Surat-Trib.)]

83. Assessing Officer could not make additions to income of assessee-company only on basis of sworn statement of its managing director recorded under section 131 during course of survey without support of any corroborative evidence. [ITO v Toms Enterprises [2019] 103 289 (Cochin – Trib.)]

84. Sec.69 additions couldn’t be made in respect of investments made in earlier years. [Km. Preeti Singh v ITO [2019] 103 293 (Delhi – Trib.)]

85. Where assessee engaged in business of bottling-cum-manufacturing of soft drink, received advances/deposits towards security against bottles & cases which was written off during relevant assessment year, in view of fact that amount received in advance was being treated as non-trading liabilities as depreciation was allowed thereon and, moreover, no benefit was received during relevant year in respect of amount so written off, provisions of section 41(1) could not be invoked in assessee’s case. [Poona Bottling Company (P.) Ltd v Asst CIT [2019] 103 239 (Pune – Trib.)]

86. Credit in bank account simply or any other raw information available to Assessing Officer can’t be loosely called as books of account under section 68. Invocation of section 68 sans valid and proper books of account of assessee is invalid and accordingly addition made by Assessing Officer as sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) based on same was incorrect and had to be reversed. [Vinesh Maheswari v ITO [2019] 103 274 (Delhi – Trib.)]

87. Where entries in assessee’s trading account including quantitative tally of purchases, opening stock, sales and closing stock were found to be correct, no addition on account of unexplained purchases could be made. [Manoj Sharma v ITO [2019] 103 105 (Delhi – Trib.)]

88. Mumbai ITAT waves off concealment penalty levied on ‘SRK’ on deemed rental income of gifted Dubai Villa. [Dy. CIT Shahrukh Khan [2019] 103 252 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

89. No sec. 13(1)(c) violation if trustee was exclusively working for trust; sec. 11 exemption allowable. [Apne Aap Women Worldwide (India) Trust v ITO [2019] 102 400 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

90. Period of holding of ESOPs shall be counted from date of grant even assessee didn’t have vesting rights, [N.R. Ravikrishnan v Asst CIT [2019] 102 418 (Bangalore – Trib.)]


91. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that if there is any delay in realization of a trading debt arising from sale of goods or services rendered in course of carrying on of business, assessee is liable to be visited with transfer pricing adjustment on account of interest income short charged/uncharged. [MC Kinsey Knowledge Centre India (P.) Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2019] 102 439 (SC)]

92. No TP adjustments on share purchase at high premium as it doesn’t amount to revenue receipt. [Pr. CIT v PMP Auto Components (P.) Ltd. [2019] 103 284 (Bombay-HC)]

93. TPO can’t determine ALP of specified domestic transactions not referred to him by AO. [Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v UOI [2019] 103 388 (Bombay-HC)] 

94. TPO while determining ALP of a transaction has got limited jurisdiction to ascertain ALP of transaction and he cannot sit in judgment to ascertain whether services are indeed required by assessee or not; it is beyond scope of TPO’s jurisdiction to comment on requirement of services by assessee. [Tata BlueScope Steel Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 287 (Pune – Trib.)] 

95. ITAT remanded matter to consider issue of AMP exp. in absence of any specific agreement to incur it. [Canon India (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2019] 103 232 (Delhi – Trib.)] 

96. Where assessee is not a foreign company and TPO has not proposed any variation to return filed by assessee, assessee for purposes of section 144C(15)(b) is not an ‘eligible assessee’; consequently, DRP would have no jurisdiction to pass draft assessment order. [Asst CIT v ESPN Star Sports Mauritius SNC et Companie [2019] 103 189 (Delhi – Trib.)]

97. Where Indian subsidiary incurred AMP expenses for promoting brand owned by French AE, in absence of an agreement between assessee and said AE to share/reimburse AMP expenditure incurred by assessee in India, transaction in question would not be an international transaction. [L’Oreal India (P.) Ltd. v ACIT [2019] 102 378 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

98. Application of ‘cash profit margin’, under TNMM, in manufacturing industry is appropriate for reason that same eliminates impact on profitability of differences in respect of technology, age of assets used in production, capacity utilization and depreciation expenses and its policies and interest expenses. [Dy. CIT v Epcos Ferrites Ltd. [2019] 102 422 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

99. TPO can select comparables in respect of which results aren’t available in public domain. [Philips Medical Systems (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019] 102 441 (Kolkata – Trib.)]

100. Where TPO had changed over to CUP method as MAM by rejecting TNMM method consistently being applied by assessee without any change in facts and law, adjustment made by TPO was to be set aside. [Asst CIT v Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2019] 102 438 (Mumbai – Trib.)]


101. Where ONGC had benefit of services provided by assessee, a Dutch company, but did not gain any technical knowledge, experience or skill which would enable ONGC to undertake such an endeavour independently in future without aid and assistance of assessee, payment made to assessee for such services would not fall within scope of article 12 of DTAA between India and Netherlands and would not be taxable in India. [ONGC v ADIT [2019] 103 165 (Delhi – Trib.)] 

102. Buying agency commission received by assessee, a Hong Kong based company, for rendering buying agency services to its related company AIMPL and other unrelated customers, was not liable to tax in India as fee for technical services. [Dy. Cit v Adidas Sourcing Ltd [2019] 102 469 (Delhi – Trib.)] 

103. Matter of taxability of payment for licensing of software remanded to file of DRP with a direction to re-decide issue in light of latest decision of Tribunal on same subject. [Cast Software Inc v Dy. CIT [ 417 (Delhi – Trib.)]2019] 102 

104.FOX international’ not liable to pay tax on agency commission in absence of territorial nexus with India. [Fox International Channel Asia Pacific Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2019] 103 1 (Mumbai – Trib.)]

Disclaimer: Above said information are taken from publically available resources and believed to be accurate.

Author Bio

More Under Income Tax

Leave a Comment

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

Search Posts by Date

September 2021