Tax Updates- Jan '20

TAX UPDATES – JANUARY ‘20 ROUND UP
CA. REETIKA G AGARWAL
NEWS
DIRECT TAX
1. CBDT prescribes ‘Other Electronics Modes’ for
the purpose of electronic payments & receipts.
[Ref: NOTIFICATION NO. 8/2020 [G.S.R. 56(E)/
F.NO.370142/14/2019-TPL], DATED 29-1-2020]
2. CBDT notifies ‘Institute of Pesticide Formulation
Technology’ for the purpose of sec. 35
deduction.
[Ref: NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 389(E) [NO. 7/2020/F.
NO. 203/02/2019(ITA-II)], DATED 28-1-2020]
3. CBDT proposes new Form 15E for making
application to determine ‘sum chargeable to
tax’ u/s 195.
[Ref: OFFICE MEMORANDUM F. NO.
340142/24/2019-TPL, DATED 31-12-2019]
4. Govt. notifies Form ITR 1 and ITR 4 for
Assessment Year 2020-21.
[Ref: Notification No. 01/2020/F. No.
370142/32/2019-TPL]
5. CBDT condones delay of up to 365 days in filing
of audit report & income accumulation of trust
for AY 2018-19.
[Ref: CIRCULAR NO. 2/2020 [F. NO. 197/55/2018-
ITA-I], DATED 3-1-2020]
6. CBDT eases eligibility conditions for filing ITR-1
& ITR-4 for AY 2020-21.
[Ref: PRESS RELEASE, DATED 9-1-2020]
7. CBDT releases MLI synthesised text for India-
Poland, India-Ireland & India-UK tax treaties
[Ref: www.incometaxindia.gov.in]
8. CBDT further extends due date for linking of
Aadhaar with PAN till March 31, 2020
[Ref: NOTIFICATION S.O. 4708(E) [NO.107/2019
[F.NO.225/75/2019-ITA.II), DATED 30-12-2019]
9. ‘Debit card powered by RuPay’ and ‘UPI’
notified as prescribed mode of payments for
the purpose of section 269SU.
[Ref: NOTIFICATION NO.105/2019 [G.S.R.960(E),
(F.NO.370142/35/2019-TPL)], DATED 30-12-2019]
10. Penalty for not providing facility to accept
digital payment as per 269SU to be levied from
01-02-2020.
[Ref: CIRCULAR NO.32/2019 [F.NO.370142/35/2019-
TPL], DATED 30-12-2019]
11. Constituent Company to furnish info of
international group irrespective of international
transaction; Rule 10DA amended
[Ref: www.incometaxindia.gov.in]
*********

OECD
[Ref:-https://www.oecd.org]
1. OECD releases consultation document on the
review of Country-by-Country Reporting and
invites public input (BEPS Action 13).
2. International community renews commitment
to multilateral efforts to address tax challenges
from digitalization of the economy.
3. Togo joins international efforts against tax
evasion and avoidance.
4. North Macedonia signs landmark agreement to
strengthen its tax treaties.
5. OECD and IOTA join forces in promoting
stronger tax systems.
6. Viet Nam and Palau join the Global Forum on
Tax Transparency.
7. Saudi Arabia deposits its instrument of
ratification for the Multilateral BEPS
Convention.
8. Cyprus deposits its instrument of ratification for
the Multilateral BEPS Convention.
9. Qatar deposits its instrument of ratification for
the Multilateral BEPS Convention.
10. Liechtenstein deposits its instrument of
ratification for the Multilateral BEPS Convention
11. Brazil identifies a clear pathway for aligning its
transfer pricing framework with the OECD
standard.
12. Honduras and Montenegro joins the Inclusive
Framework on BEPS.
13. OECD releases peer review reports on dispute
resolution for Brazil; Bulgaria; China; Hong
Kong, China; Indonesia; Russia and Saudi Arabia
Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cabo Verde,
14. Mongolia and Oman join the most powerful
multilateral instrument against offshore tax
evasion and avoidance
15. Kenya and Oman sign landmark agreement to
strengthen their tax treaties
16. OECD releases guidance on the spontaneous
exchange by no or only nominal tax jurisdictions
17. Bosnia and Herzegovina signs landmark
agreement to strengthen its tax treaties
18. Jordan signs landmark agreement to strengthen
its tax treaties
19. Albania joins the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.
20. Ecuador and Serbia deposit instruments of
ratification for the multilateral Convention on
Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax
Matters.
21. Canada and Switzerland deposit their
instruments of ratification for the Multilateral
BEPS Convention.
22. Guinea, Namibia and Honduras join the fight
against tax evasion.
23. OECD releases first stage 2 monitoring reports
for BEPS Action 14 on improving tax dispute
resolution mechanisms.
24. Namibia joins the Inclusive Framework on BEPS.
***********

DOMESTIC TAX CASE LAWS
SUPREME COURT
1. Where High Court upheld Tribunal's decision of
deleting penalty in case of assessee under
section 271(i)(c) on basis of order passed in case
of sister concern of assessee, SLP filed against
said order was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v
Synbiotics Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 153
(SC)]
2. Where High Court upheld Tribunal's order
allowing assessee's claim for depreciation on
goodwill, SLP filed against said order was to be
dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Zydus Wellness Ltd. [2020]
113 taxmann.com 154 (SC)]
allowing assessee's claim for carry forward of
loss by taking a view that assessee had not
sought to gain any unfair advantage in matter
by filing return in old Form, SLP filed against
said order was to be dismissed. [CIT v Zila
Sahkari Bank (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com
165 (SC)]
holding that section 32 covered certain
intangible assets for depreciation and, thus,
claim raised by assessee being a plausible claim,
mere fact that same was withdrawn during
subsequent search proceedings would not give
rise to penalty under section 271(1)(C) SLP filed
against said order was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT
v Financial Technologies India Ltd. [2020] 113
taxmann.com 152 (SC)]
5. Benami transactions are forbidden by reason of
section 3; no action lies, nor can any defense in
a suit be taken, based on any benami
transaction in terms of section 4 and onus of
establishing that a transaction is benami is upon
one who asserts it. [Fair Communication &
Consultants v Surendra Kerdile [2020] 113
holding that since assessee had revised her
return showing capital gain arising from sale of
land prior to issue of notice under section 153C
and, thus, penalty could not be imposed under
sec. 271(1)(c), SLP filed against said order was
to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Prabhjot Kaur
Chhabra [2020] 113 taxmann.com 141 (SC)]
7. SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that
Principal Commissioner/Commissioner (DR)
could not be given opportunity of hearing at
time of consideration of application for
settlement at stage of admission under section
245D(2C). [Income Tax Settlement Commission
v Akshar Developers [2020] 113 taxmann.com
164 (SC)]
8. Where during pendency of appellate
proceedings, a stay order was passed subject to
assessee's depositing 15 per cent of outstanding
tax demand which was confirmed by High
Court, SLP filed against said order was to be
dismissed. [Karmvir Builders v Pr. CIT [2020]
9. Where High Court decided issue relating to
applicability of second proviso to section
40(a)(ia) to assessment year 2010-11 against
revenue, SLP filed against said order was to be
granted. [Pr. CIT v Noida Software Technology
Park Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 145 (SC)]
holding that in absence of any evidence on
record showing that funds of assessee trust
were being utilised for private purposes,
Assessing Officer was not justified in refusing to
grant approval under section 80G(5)(vi), SLP
filed against said order was to be dismissed.
[CIT (exp) v Seth Vinod Kumar Somani
Charitable Trust [2020] 113 taxmann.com 143
(SC)]
11. There is no reason to deny payment of interest
under section 244A to deductor who had
deducted tax at source and deposited same
with Treasury and, thus, appellant would be
entitled to interest on amount refunded by
Department. [Universal Cables Ltd. v CIT [2020]

allowing assessee's application for stay of
demand during pendency of appellate
proceedings, SLP filed against said order was to
be dismissed. [CIT v MSD Pharmaceuticals (P.)
Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 137 (SC)]
when expenditure incurred in foreign currency
on account of telecommunication expenses is
excluded from export turnover, said
expenditure has to be excluded from total
turnover also for purpose of computation of
deduction under section 10B. [CIT v Mphasis
holding that assessee had followed an accepted
method of valuation of shares and, thus,
addition made by Assessing Officer in said
respect was not sustainable, SLP filed against
order of High Court was to be dismissed. [Pr.
CIT v Microfilm Capital (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
15. Where High Court allowed assessee's claim for
deduction of expenditure incurred on fertility
improvement amongst milk animals on ground
that said expenditure was general in nature and
aimed at improving practices for better fertility
amongst milk animals, SLP filed against said
order was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Gujarat
Co. Op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. [2020]
holding that since assessee had withdrawn huge
amount of cash from his bank account on
different dates source of which she failed to
explain, and, thus, an addition was to be made
under section 69A, SLP filed against said order
was to be dismissed. [Shashi Garg v Pr. CIT
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 93 (SC)]
17. Where High Court finding that Gold Dore Bars,
which had been seized were stock-in-trade of
assessee and had been imported as raw
materials, directed that said goods could be
released to assessee after proper verification,
SLP filed against order of High Court was to be
dismissed. [Dy. DIT v Kundan Care Products
where assessee allotted shares to a company in
settlement of pre-existing liability of assessee to
said company, since no cash was involved in
transaction of said allotment of shares,
conversion of these liabilities into share capital
and share premium could not be treated as
unexplained cash credits under section 68. [ITO
v V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
holding that assessee's claim for exemption
under section 10(38) could not be allowed
because share transactions were bogus as
company 'C' whose shares were allegedly
purchased was a penny stock, SLP filed against
said order was to be dismissed. [Suman Poddar
v ITO [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC)]
disallowance under section 14A cannot exceed
exempt income of relevant year. [Pr. CIT v Caraf
Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 112
21. Where High Court held that Tribunal had erred
in taking view that assessee was entitled to
deduction under section 80HHC on total income
after excluding deduction available under
section 80-IB, SLP filed against said order was to
be dismissed. [Asst. CIT v IPCA Laboratories
once genuineness, creditworthiness and
identity of investors are established, no
addition could be made as cash credit on
ground that shares were issued at excess
premium. [Pr. CIT v Bharat Securities (P.) Ltd.
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 32 (SC)]

holding that assessee had satisfied all
conditions stipulated in provisions of section
80-IB(10) and, therefore, it would be eligible to
claim deduction, SLP filed against said order
was to be dismissed. [Pr. CIT v Kewal Real
Estate Developers (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
holding that in absence of any failure on part of
assessee to disclose fully and trully all material
facts at time of assesment, reassessment
proceedings could not be initiated after expiry
of four years from end of relevant year, SLP
filed against said order was to be dismissed. [Pr.
CIT v L&T Ltd [2020] 113 taxmann.com 48 (SC)]
where assessee allotted shares to a company in
settlement of pre-existing liability of assessee to
said company, since no cash was involved in
transaction of said allotment of shares,
conversion of these liabilities into share capital
and share premium could not be treated as
unexplained cash credits under section 68. [ITO
v V.R. Global Energy (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
*************
HIGH COURT
1. Where during pendency of writ proceedings
against order passed by AO raising demand of
tax deducted at source from assessee's salary
income, assessee made repeated request by
way of rectification application before Assessing
Officer but said application was not disposed of,
it was appropriate to direct Assessing Officer to
consider rectification application filed by
assessee and pass orders on same on merits
and in accordance with law. [Sankaranarayanan
Rajshekar v. Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com
331 (Madras)]
2. Loss on revaluation of trading stock of Interest
Rate Swaps (IRS) on market to market basis is
only notional loss/revaluation and is not
allowable as deduction. [Federal Bank Ltd. v
Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 333 (Kerala)]
3. Benefit under sections 11 and 12 would be
available to assessee from assessment year
following financial year in which application for
registration under section 12A was given and
not from any previous year. [CIT (Exp) v. Shiv
Kumar Sumitra Devi Smarak Shikshan Sansthan
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 334 (Allahabad)]
4. Where assessee preferred an appeal before
Tribunal against additions made to its income
on account of royalty issue, Transfer pricing and
attribution along with stay application under
section 220 seeking for stay of recovery
proceedings, since Tribunal remanded issues
related to transfer pricing and attribution to
TPO, no arbitrariness or perversity was found in
interim order of Tribunal considering only
demand related to royalty issue while
quantifying sum to be paid by assessee as a
condition for grant of stay of demand. [Jt. CIT v
Google India (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com
236 (Karnataka)]
5. High Court slams Tax Dept. for conducting
search actions solely relying info received from
investigation wing. [Khem Chand Mukim v Pr.
CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 529 (Delhi)]

6. Adjudication on merits of case by Tribunal is
essential for High Court to hear an appeal and
Tribunal could not have dismissed same solely
on account of non-appearance of a party. In
absence of party, Tribunal should proceed to
decide matter on merits and it cannot defeat
rights of parties on its whims and fancies or by
procedural wrangles and uncertainties. [Golden
Times Services (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 524 (Delhi)]
7. Where assessee sold a land during relevant
assessment year and as per MOU part of sale
consideration was payable by purchaser on
completion of assessee's obligation under
MOU, assessee having not met conditions of
MOU during relevant year such amount was not
taxable in relevant assessment year. [Pr. CIT v
Rohan Projects [2020] 113 taxmann.com 339
(Bombay)]
8. Where AO rejected assessee's claim for
deduction under section 54B in respect of
capital gain arising from sale of agricultural land
on ground that purchaser of land was a builder
and, thus, said piece of land was not agricultural
land, since view taken by Assessing officer while
rejecting assessee's claim was not in
consonance with requirements made under
section 54B, impugned order passed by him was
to be set aside. [S. Sundaramurthy v Pr. CIT
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 341 (Madras)]
9. Where there was dispute relating to taxability
of transaction of buy back of shares from
shareholders by assessee-company in terms of
section 115-O, Single Judge while directing
assessee to file an appeal before Commissioner
(Appeals) under section 246A, was not justified
in entering into merits of case so far as
taxability under section 115-O was concerned.
[Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd.
v Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 232
(Madras)]
10. For block assessment of undisclosed income
also, provisions of sections 142, 143(2) and
143(3) are applicable; no assessment can be
made without issuing notice under section
143(2). [CIT v Fomento Finance and Investment
(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com 237
(Bombay)]
11. Where assessee entered into an agreement to
let out a premises with various amenities, and
for maintainance and upkeeping of said
premises since assessee did not involve any
kind of recurring, systematic and organized
business activity and, moreover, in respect of
maintenance and upkeeping of let out
premises, it appointed only one person,
Assessing Officer was justified in treating rental
income assessable as 'income from house
property' and services receipts as 'income from
other sources'. [Meeraj Estate & Developers v
CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 231 (Allahabad)]
12. Where assessee entered into an MoU with
State Government wherein assessee agreed to
construct houses to rehabilitate flood victims,
since assessee incurred this expenditure not
only as a social responsibility but also keeping in
mind goodwill and benefit it would yield in long
run in earning profit, impugned expenditure
would be in realm of 'business expenditure'
allowable under section 37(1). [Kanhaiyalal
Dudheria v Jt. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 217
(Karnataka)]
13. Where pursuant to issuance of notice under
section 148, High Court passed a stay order
restraining revenue to pass final assessment
order till disposal of petition filed by assessee, it
did not mean that continuation of reassessment
proceedings in meantime would be contrary to
statute and, thus, assessee's plea that Assessing
Officer could not recommence assessment
proceedings by issuing notice under section
143(2), deserved to be rejected. [Devendra
Kumar Singh v Asst. CIT [2020] 113
14. Where relief claimed in petition is to direct
department to accept return of income of
applicant for assessment year 2017-18
furnished electronically under section 139(1)

and to declare that section 139AA violates
article 21 of Constitution of India, since on
question as to whether Aadhaar Act was rightly
introduced as a 'Money Bill', Supreme Court
vide in case of Rojer Mathew v. South Indian
Bank Ltd. has referred issue for consideration
by a Larger Bench and therefore, validity of
Aadhaar Act has not attained finality, with a
view to balance equities, the High Court
ordered that PAN of applicant shall not be
declared inoperative and applicant would not
be in default in any proceedings only for reason
that permanent account number is not linked
with Aadhaar or Aadhaar number is not quoted
and applicant shall not be subjected to proviso
to sub-section (2) of section 139AA till judgment
of Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew v. South
Indian Bank Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 208 is
delivered and available. [Bandish Saurabh
Soparkar v UOI [2020] 113 taxmann.com 416
(Gujarat)]
15. Where order passed under section 201 against
assessee which was an important element in
deciding tax deduction rates in certificate issued
under section 197, did not survive, DCIT (TDS)
was directed to undertake fresh exercise to
decide rate of income tax to be deducted. [TLG
India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 158 (Bombay)]
16. Where pursuant to addition made to income of
assessee a penalty under section 271(1)(c) was
imposed and assessee filed an appeal against
such penalty before Commissioner (Appeals),
since revenue had recovered huge amount of
penalty by way of adjustment from refund
payable to assessee, assessee was to be granted
stay against further recovery of penalty amount
till final disposal of appeal by Commissioner
(Appeals). [Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. v
UOI [2020] 113 taxmann.com 120 (Gujarat)]
17. Amount paid by assessee to cable operators for
channel placement fee was subject to
deduction of tax at source under section 194C
and not under section 194J. [Pr. CIT v Star
Entertainment Media (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
taxmann.com 160 (Bombay)]
18. Where assessee, engaged in real estate
business, failed to bring on record evidence
showing that she had refunded amount
received in advance from a trust on account of
her failure to hand over a piece of land free
from encumbrances and, thus, assessee's claim
for deduction under section 37(1) in respect of
said payment was rejected by authorities
below, no substantial question of law arose
from said order. [Smt. Rajkumari Suniel Mutha
v ITO [2020] 113 taxmann.com 159 (Bombay)]
19. Where assessee while filling its return of
income had entered incorrect figures under
certain heads of income and expenditure and,
thus, filed a rectification return which was
rejected, revision application under section 264
filed by assessee within one year from date of
rejection of its rectification return was certainly
maintainable, more particularly, when Principal
Commissioner had found that assessee had
committed such error inadvertently. [Sharp
Tools v Pr. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 63
(Madras)]
20. Where assessee at time of obtaining new loan,
had to pay certain 'front end fee' to bank, since
said amount constituted interest inability of
assessee spread over a period of time, assessee
was entitled to amortise same under section
35D. [CIT v Kesoram Industries Ltd. [2019] 112
taxmann.com 356 (Calcutta)]
21. Where amount received by assessee via pay
orders in its bank account did not belong to him
and assessee was only a conduit through whom
amounts were floated and said amount was
added to income of its beneficiary, no addition
under section 69A could be made to income of
assessee. [CIT v Anoop Jain [2019] 112
22. Where assessee purchased commercial
property in December 2008, but occupancy
certificate of same was given in May 2009, and

in meantime, assessee had leased out property
with effect from 1-4-2009, between 1-1-2009 to
31-3-2009, property was not legally occupiable
and not occupied and assessee could not be
made liable to tax on notional rental income for
that period. [Sharan Hospitality (P.) Ltd. v Dy.
CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 372 (Bombay)]
23. Where land purchased by assessee was
different from that mentioned in seized
document and department could not prove
understatement of sale consideration, addition
made under section 69B on account of
undisclosed investment in respect of purchase
of land was not justified. [Pr. CIT v Kulwinder
Singh [2019] 112 taxmann.com 382 (Punjab &
Haryana)]
24. Addition of undisclosed income can be made
where sale consideration of asset is under
accounted; no such addition can be made
where purchase consideration is under
accounted. [Pr. CIT v Virender Kumar Bhatia
[2019] 112 taxmann.com 379 (Delhi)]
25. Where Assessing Officer issued detailed
questionnaire, in reply to which records were
filed, but Assessing Officer did not apply his
mind nor did he conduct an enquiry while
accepting claim of assessee although he
recorded in note-sheet that reply filed by
appellant was not satifactory and did not
explain all facts, assessment order was to be
revised. [Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd. v
CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 4 (Madhya
Pradesh)]
*************
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
1. Where in respect of share application money
received, assessee-company brought on record
sufficient evidence in form of bank account
particulars, PAN, ITRs and financials of share
applicants so as to prove genuineness of those
transactions, in such circumstances, impugned
addition under section 68 could not be
sustained merely on account of non-production
of directors of company without bringing any
other contrary material on record. [ITO v.
Commitment Financial Services (P.) Ltd. [2020]
113 taxmann.com 565 (Delhi - Trib.)]
2. In view of changing time and widening horizon
of knowledge and rapid change in method of
teaching, multifaceted activities in form of
handbook/literature published together with
activities like holding conferences on industrial
safety programmes, public talks, seminars,
workshops, etc. on ongoing basis to inculcate
industrial safety measures would also be
bracketed in league of 'educational activities'.
[Gujarat Safety Council v ITO [2020] 113
taxmann.com 234 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)]
3. Sec. 263 revision justified as firm can't claim
deduction of interest & remuneration in best
judgment assessment. [Saroj Print Arts v Pr. CIT
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 264 (Mumbai - Trib.)]
4. MODVAT credit does not have any impact on
profit of assessee and, thus, unutilised MODVAT
credit could not be added to value of closing
stock under section 145A. [Mahindra &
Mahindra Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 230 (Mumbai - Trib.)]
5. Where depositors give Form No. 15G/15H to
assessee-bank, law empowers assessee to make
payment of interest without deduction of tax at
source even though assessee has not furnished
those Forms to Commissioner because
requirement of filing of Form 15G and 15H with
prescribed authority viz., Commissioner, is only
procedural and that cannot result in a
disallowance under section 40a(ia). [Jt. CIT v
Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank [2020] 113

taxmann.com 530 (Bangalore - Trib.)]
6. Once transfer of case of assessee was ordered
under section 127, Assessing Officer who was
vested with jurisdiction by virtue of direction or
order issued under sub-section (1) or (2) of
section 120 and section 124, stood divested of
same and, in such a case, notice issued under
section 143(2) by said Assessing Officer after
date of transfer, was to be regarded as invalid
notice and, consequently, assessment framed
under section 143(3) pursuant to notice so
issued would be void ab initio. [Rungta
Irrigation Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 330 (Kolkata - Trib.)]
7. Where an application filed under section 7 of
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against
assessee-company had been admitted and
moratorium under section 14 of 2016 code, had
been declared, appeal filed by revenue against
assessee under provisions of Act, could not be
allowed to be continued during course of
moratorium period. [Shamken Multifab Ltd. v
Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi -
Trib.)]
8. Proviso to section 50C inserted by FA, 2018 with
effect from 1-4-2019 is applicable with retro
effect. [Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v Dy.
CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 246 (Kolkata -
Trib.)]
9. Where assessee, a small trader in medicine
falling under section 44AD, offered income on
presumptive taxation basis, provision of section
69A could not be applied to make addition in
respect of undisclosed cash credits found in
assessee's bank account. [Thomas Eapen v ITO
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 268 (Cochin - Trib.)]
10. In view of definition as mentioned in section
2(47)(vi), transaction of perpetual lease
agreement by which assessee took possession
of property for unlimited period, has to be
construed as purchase of property within
meaning of section 54F. [N. Ramaswamy v ITO
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 289 (Chennai - Trib.)]
11. Where assessee firm had availed loan from its
partner under a bona fide belief that provisions
of section 269SS were not applicable in relation
to transaction between firm and partners,
assessee would be protected by provisions of
section 273B and no penalty would be levied
upon it under section 271D. [Surendra Engg.
Corpn. v Jt. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 290
(Mumbai - Trib.)]
12. Registration granted to an association under
section 12AA is required to be continued till
nature of its activities change; registration
cannot be cancelled on mere fact that assessee-
trust earned commercial lease rent exceeding
Rs. 25 lakhs. [Orissa Olympic Association v CIT
(exp) [2020] 113 taxmann.com 235 (Cuttack -
Trib.)]
13. Where assessee explained that amount
deposited in bank account was received as gift
from his father who had sold agricultural land,
since revenue authorities had not doubted
veracity of sale deed brought on record by
assessee's father, source of cash deposited in
bank was duly explained and, thus, impugned
addition made under section 68 was to be
deleted. [Kuldeep Singh v ITO [2020] 113
taxmann.com 265 (Chandigarh - Trib.)]
14. Assessee-trust would be entitled for deduction
under section 24 in computation of income
from house property. [Shantaram Bhat
Charitable Trust v CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com
262 (Mumbai - Trib.)]
15. Where assessee company incurred expenditure
by way of receiving lesser payment from buyers
of coal because of supplied coal containing high
moisture and low calorific value, merely
because assessee categorised such expenditure
as penalty levied for not complying to terms of
contract with buyers, it could not be said that
such expenditure was incurred for infraction of
law so as to attract provisions under
Explanation 1 to section 37 (1) and same was an
allowable deduction. [Dy. CIT v Mahavir

Multitrade (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113 taxmann.com
261 (Delhi - Trib.)]
16. Where a proprietor transfer his business to a
private company and receives money as well as
shares of such company as consideration then
such transaction shall be regarded as ‘transfer’
and for the purposes of computation of capital
gain, the value of the assets taken over by the
company should be considered as the full value
of consideration. However, in the instant case,
since cost of acquisition and full value of
consideration received on sale were same
figure, no capital gains had accrued or were
received by assessee. Thus, addition under head
capital gains was to be deleted. [Ravi Jalan v
ITO [2020] 113 taxmann.com 414 (Kolkata -
Trib.)]
17. Where wife of assessee started business of
Futures and Options (F&O) by having some
contribution from assessee in shape of gifts and
incurred loss, entire amount of loss resulting
from said business of F&O with gifts received
from assessee was liable to be clubbed in hands
of assessee in terms of Explanation 3 read in
conjunction with section 64(1)(iv). Therefore,
assessee was entitled to club full loss from
business of F&O in his personal income. [Uday
Gopal Bhaskarwar v Asst. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 378 (Pune - Trib.)]
18. 5% variation introduced by sec. 43CA couldn't
apply retrospectively. [Welfare Properties (P.)
Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 156
(Mumbai - Trib.)]
19. Deeming fiction of sec. 50C won't apply where
leasehold right in land was transferred. [Ritz
Suppliers (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2020] 113
taxmann.com 349 (Kolkata - Trib.)]
20. ALV computed on basis of valuation report of
Municipal Authorities couldn’t be rejected
without valid reason. [Sanjay Brahmdev Kapoor
v Asst CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 320
(Mumbai - Trib.)]
21. Assessee was not eligible for higher rate of
depreciation at rate of 30 per cent on vehicles
used by it in business of promotional activities
in rural markets of India. [Rural Communication
and Marketing (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 121 (Delhi - Trib.)]
22. Performance bonus does not form part of
'salary' as defined in clause (h) of Rule 2A
purpose of computing exemption under section
10(13A). Thus, assessee would be entitled to
house rent allowance to extent of excess of rent
paid over 10 per cent of salary. [Sudip Rungta v
Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 295 (Kolkata -
Trib.)]
23. Where assessee trust had invested its surplus
fund in chit fund during preceding assessment
year, it was a clear case of violation of
provisions of section 11(5), hence, assessee-
trust was not entitled for exemption under
section 11. [Asst. DIT v Sree Gokulam
Educational and Medical Trust [2020] 113
taxmann.com 64 (Chennai - Trib.)]
24. Cash payment made by trust couldn't be
considered as payment made towards non-
specified purposes. [Sri Srinivasa Educational &
Charitable Trust v Asst CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 65 (Bangalore - Trib.)]
25. Pitch and substance of each contract entered by
NR Co. to be evaluated before examine
applicability of sec. 44BB. [Maritime Vanguard
Pte. Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com
26. Conversion of CCPSS as per FMV and in
accordance with shareholder agreement can’t
be treated as a sham transaction. [Dy. CIT v
Brand Marketing (India) (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
27. No obligation is cast upon assessee/Indian
company to deduct tax at source at time of
making of payment towards demurrage charges
to a non-resident shipping company, as latters
income was liable to be brought to tax under
section 44B and consequently under section

172. [Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals
Corpn. Ltd. v Pr. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com
28. In terms of Rule 37BA(3)(i) benefit of TDS is to
be given for assessment year for which
corresponding income is assessable, therefore,
where assessee raised invoice on 'A' in March
2011, benefit of TDS had to be allowed in
assessment year 2011-12 even though tax on
invoice amount was deposited by 'A' in April
2011. [Mahesh Software Systems (P.) Ltd. v
Asst. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 354 (Pune -
Trib.)]
29. Where assessee borrowed funds and utilised
them for lending money to various parties,
interest paid by assessee on money borrowed
was to be allowed under section 57(iii) even if it
did not earn interest income on money lent by
it. [Akash Goyal v Asst. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 10 (Agra - Trib.)]
30. Where assessee, engaged in business of real
estate development, sold bare flats and made
provision for expenses to be incurred to
complete such sold out flats, since assessee had
duly filed relevant documents such as
architect's certificate, site engineer architect's
estimation so as to prove that assessee had
incurred such expenses on sold out flats, no
revision to be made so as to disallow such
provision considering same as unascertained
liability. [Khetawat Properties Ltd. v Pr. CIT
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 8 (Kolkata - Trib.)]
31. Sec. 11 exemption couldn’t be disallowed just
because ‘JSCA’ received sum from BCCI on
account of IPL subvention. [Jharkhand State
Cricket Association v Dy. CIT [2019] 112
taxmann.com 320 (Ranchi-Trib.)]
32. Profit on sale of industrial park is eligible for
sec. 80-IA deduction. [ETT Ltd. v CIT [2019] 112
33. Where assessee received a consideration for
assignment of know how relating to scientific,
medical and technical documents relating to
manufacture of an oncology product under
development, since cost of acquisition of know-
how under development being a self-generated
asset was not ascertainable, consideration for
transfer thereof could not be brought to tax
under head 'capital gains'. [Bharat Serums and
Vaccines Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2019] 112
34. In absence of any material on record showing
that notice was tendered either to assessee or
its duly appointed agent, service by resorting to
affixture was a premature decision on part of
Assessing Officer. [K.P. ColdStorage v ITO
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 7 (Agra - Trib.)]
35. Where assessee had received property from his
brothers on account of Family Settlement and
Release Deed was also executed in which it was
nowhere recorded that assessee paid any
consideration to his other three brothers, there
being no commercial transaction, provisions of
section 56(2)(vii)(b) were not attracted. [Govind
Kumar, Khemka v ACIT [2020] 113
**********

INTERNATIONAL TAXATION
1. Where assessee, a PE of German Company, filed
instant petition challenging validity of show
couse notice seeking to tax entire income
earned by its parent German company in India
in its hand, in view of fact that so many factual
disputes, went to root of matter, viz., nature of
activities carried on by assessee, existed
between parties which could not be decided in
writ proceedings, instant petition was to be
disposed of with a direction to assessee to file
its objections before DRP. [EOS GmbH-India
Branch v Dy. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 328
(Madras-HC)]
2. The question of existence of permanent
establishment (PE) of a non-resident assessee,
which requires a detailed enquiry is not
envisaged at the stage of deciding the
application for issuance of certificate under
section 197. However, the full fledged
investigation in said regard can be done by the
Assessing Officer during the course of
assessment proceedings. [National Petroleum
Construction Co. v Dy. CIT [2019] 112
taxmann.com 364 (Delhi-HC)]
3. Where assessee, a U.S based company, earned
income from providing cloud services including
cloud hosting and other supporting and
ancillary services to Indian customers, since
there was no leasing of any equipment by
assessee and customers were not having
physical control or possession over servers and
right to operate and manage this
infrastructure/servers vested solely with
assessee, said income earned by assessee was
not royalty or fees for technical services within
meaning of section 9(1)(vi) or section 9(1)(vii).
[Rackspace, US Inc v Dy. CIT [2020] 113
4. Where assessee, a Cyprus based company, was
awarded a contract in relation to development
of gas fields located offshore in East Coast of
India, in view of fact that its construction
activities in India continued for a period of six
months only, it could be concluded that
assessee did not have PE in India in terms of
acticle 5(a)(g) of India - Cyprus DTAA. [Bellsea
Ltd. v Dy. DIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 344
(Delhi - Trib.)]
5. Where assessee company incorporated in
Singapore had appointed an agent in India to
render port agent services on assessee's behalf
and Assessing Officer passed an order under
section 172(4) holding that freight
charges/receipts received for such services in
India by assessee was taxable in India, since
Assessing Officer had passed this order without
passing any draft order under section 172(2) as
per scheme of section 144C, matter was to be
remanded. [ISS Shipping India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 119 (Rajkot - Trib.)]
6. As per article 11(1) of India-Mauritius Tax
Treaty, interest income can be brought to tax
only on fulfilment of twin conditions of accrual
as well as actual receipt. [Gurgaon Investment
Ltd. v Dy. DIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 79
(Mumbai - Trib.)]
7. Where assessee-company, incorporated in
Mauritius, was engaged in business of shipping
and it claimed income from shipping activities
taking support of Article 8 of DTAA entered into
between India and Mauritius, since effective
management of assessee was neither in
Mauritius nor in India but in a third country, it
was not entitled for benefit claimed by it. [ARC
Line (Mauritius) v Dy. CIT [2019] 112
8. Where taxability of gain on account of
transaction in foreign exchange is very well
expressly dealt with in provision of article 7 or
article 14 of Indo - Spain tax treaty, article 23
has no application. [Jt. CIT v Merrill Lynch
Capital Market Espana SA SV [2019] 112
9. Where assessee, an Italy based company,
supplied microwave transmission equipments
to Indian companies whereas activities of
installation, commissioning and maintenance of

those equipments were carried out by
assessee's sister concern in India under
independent contracts and income from those
activities were duly offered to tax, said sister
concern could not be regarded as assessee's PE
in India in terms of article 5 of India-Italy DTAA.
[Siemens Mobile Communications SPA v Dy.
CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi - Trib.)]
10. Where assessee, being shipping agent of its
foreign based AE, paid software maintenance
charges to said AE for use of software for its
own business purpose and not for use of, or
right to use, any copyright of software, it would
not constitute royalties under Article 13 of
DTAA, therefore, there was no requirement on
part of assessee to deduct tax at source. [CMA
CGM Agencies India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020]
113 taxmann.com 61 (Pune - Trib.)]
11. Where assessee, engaged in business of e-
publishing, outsourced its work to various
companies located abroad, in view of fact that
services rendered by non-resident such as copy
editing, indexing and doing proof reading
required only knowledge in language and it did
not require to have necessary expertise in
subject matter of text, it could be concluded
that services rendered by non-residents were
not technical in nature and, as a result, amount
paid for said services was not taxable in India.
[Dy. CIT v Integra Software Services (P.) Ltd.
[2020] 113 taxmann.com 9 (Chennai - Trib.)]
***********
TRANSFER PRICING CASE LAWS
1. Transfer pricing adjustment cannot be done at
entity level but has only to be done in respect of
international transactions of assessee with its
Associated Enterprises (AE). [Pr. CIT v Visteon
Engineering Centre (India) (P.) Ltd. [2020] 113
taxmann.com 161 (Bombay-HC)]
2. Where assessee had not opted for e-proceeding
facility, but had chosen to have its assessment
proceedings continued in manual mode, receipt
of draft assessment order in manual mode had
to be seen as date of service of draft
assessment order. [FCI Oen Connectors Ltd. v
Dy. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 160 (Kerala-
HC)]
3. Transfer pricing adjustment qua transaction of
advancing loan by assessee an Indian company
to its New York based AE was to be determined
at US LIBOR plus 170 basis point. [Aithent
Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. Asst CIT [2020] 113
4. A company providing professional technical
consultancy assistance to banks and to
entrepreneurs, and company engaged in
providing online portal activities such as
employment website, matrimonial website,
were to be excluded from list of comparables of
assessee providing marketing support services
being functionally dissimilar. [Rolls Royce India
(P.) Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com
5. Where assessee imported active
pharmaceutical ingredient from its AEs for
manufacturing finished formulations to be sold
in India, as long as appropriate comparables
could be found in Indian market, CUP method
was most appropriate method. [Fulford (India)
Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 286
(Mumbai - Trib.)]
6. Where assessee chose two foreign AEs as tested
parties to benchmark international transactions
of import of raw materials in its truck
manufacturing segment, TPO was justified in

rejecting said AEs in absence of any verifiable
data for computation of ALP. [Eaton Industrial
Systems (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2020] 113
7. A company having wide fluctuations in its
margins profit over years was to be excluded
from list of comparables. [Micro Focus
Software India (P.) Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2020] 113
taxmann.com 244 (Bengaluru – Trib)]
8. Where with regard to services provided by
employees of assessee to foreign AEs, certain
employees of assessee rendered liaisoning and
co-ordination services at group level as a mere
incidental activity, same need not be
considered as a separate international
transaction warranting any benchmarking.
[Addl. DIT v Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Ltd [2020] 113 taxmann.com 245
(Mumbai - Trib.)]
9. Where assessee-company was running its
business with no working capital risk since more
than 94 per cent of sales made by it were to
related parties whereas comparable companies
who primarily catered to domestic market were
having working capital risk, under such
circumstances, if at all any working capital
adjustment had to be made, then it had to be a
positive adjustment and there could not be any
negative working capital adjustment. [Ocap
Chassis Parts (P.) Ltd. v Asst CIT [2020] 113
10. TPO is barred from benchmarking 'specified
domestic transactions' when Assessing Officer
makes a reference to him for benchmarking
international transactions. [P. N. Gadgil
Jewellers (P.) Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2020] 113
11. TPO couldn’t compare margins of the controlled
transaction with segmental profitability of
trading segment of AE. Where in terms of
royalty agreement, assessee charged royalty on
manufacturing sales of AE in respect of other
markets only and not for local Gulf market, TPO
was not justified in making addition to royalty
income on basis of 'entire manufacturing sales'
of AE. [Zodiac Clothing Company Ltd. v Asst.
CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 315 (Mumbai -
Trib.)]
12. ITAT deleted ad-hoc additions made by DRP
without following any method or adopting
benchmarking analysis while determining ALP.
[Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd. v Dy. CIT
13. Where assessee consistently applied TNM
Method for determining ALP of its transaction
of export of chemical additives, TPO was not
justified in changing said method to CUP
method without bringing on record any cogent
reasons. [Lubrizol India (P.) Ltd v Addl. CIT
14. Since Additional Commissioner was an
authorised office by CBDT to perform all or any
of functions of Assessing Officer specified under
section 92C, assessment order passed by
Additional Commissioner under section 92CA(3)
is valid. [Dy. CIT v BBC Worldwide (India) (P.)
Ltd. [2019] 112 taxmann.com 380 (Delhi -
Trib.)]
15. Where assessee did not carry any working
capital risk as its entire funding needs was
provided by its AE, there was no need for
making any negative working capital
adjustment. [iPass India (P.) Ltd. v ITO [2019]
112 taxmann.com 351 (Bangalore - Trib.)]
16. Where assessee was engaged in business of
providing design engineering services and ITES
Services to its AEs and TPO re-characterized
entire services into ITE services without
assigning any reasons and, further, assessee
also did not furnish complete segmental details
while carrying out its TP study, matter was to be
restored to file of TPO/AO since there were
lapses from both sides. [Ingersoll Rand (India)
Ltd. v Asst. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 343
(Bangalore - Trib.)]

17. Where assessee company imported life saving
medical devices from its AE, since sufficient
information relating to gross margin in
uncontrolled transaction was not available so as
to benchmark transaction under RPM, TNMM
was to be adopted as MAM. [Dy. CIT v India
Medtronic (P.) Ltd. [2019] 112 taxmann.com
18. Where assessee, incurred AMP expenditure to
sale goods in India which were imported from
its AE, since no material was brought on record
by revenue to suggest that there was any
agreement between assessee and its AE to incur
AMP expenditure for promoting brand of AE,
impugned AMP expenditure would not come
within purview of international transaction as
per section 92B. [Dy. CIT v India Medtronic (P.)
Ltd. [2019] 112 taxmann.com 318 (Mumbai -
Trib.)]
19. Where TPO directed to adopt Profit Split
Method (PSM) without properly examining
expenses incurred by AE vis-a-vis assessee and
all other aspects, on an ad-hoc basis for
determining income, said issue was to be
remitted to Assessing Officer/TPO for fresh
examination. [Bengal Tiger Line India (P.) Ltd. v
Dy. CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 314 (Chennai
- Trib.)]
20. Where transaction of interest paid to unrelated
parties was available on record and average
effective rate of interest paid to unrelated
parties was not in dispute, then internal CUP
should be preferred as against external CUP as
most appropriate method for determination of
ALP. [Uttam Bharat Electricals (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT
[2019] 112 taxmann.com 305 (Jaipur - Trib.)]
21. A company offering range of data management
services to financial sector was a good
comparable to assessee providing non-binding
investment advisory services. [Eight Roads
Investments (P.) Ltd. v ACIT [2019] 112
22. Where Annual Report of a company did not
contain full details as regards its functionality,
said company couldn't be taken as comparable.
Also, Where annual reports of companies were
not available in public domain and, hence, TPO
gathered information by serving notice under
section 133(6), since said information was not
confronted to assessee, issue of comparability
of these companies were to be restored to TPO.
[Motherson Sumi Infotech & Design Ltd v Asst
CIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi - Trib.)]
23. Where assessee was availing intra-group
services from its Associated Enterprise for
providing seamless services to its customers,
since Tribunal in preceding assessment year
held TNMM as most appropriate method to be
applied for benchmarking of said services, same
order was to be followed in current assessment
year as well. [AT & T Global Network Services
(India) (P.) Ltd. v ACIT [2019] 112 taxmann.com
24. Unless a company declares loss consistently for
three consecutive assessment years, it cannot
be excluded from list of comparables on ground
that it was persistent loss making company.
[Star International Movies Ltd. v Dy. DIT [2019]
112 taxmann.com 258 (Mumbai - Trib.)]
25. In so far as determination of ALP under
machinery of computation under methods as
given in Rule 10B is concerned, term
'transaction' also includes a plural of
transactions - However, caveat is that in order
to be covered within term 'transaction' under
Rule 10A(d), it is sine qua non that such number
of transactions must be closely linked. If they
are not closely linked transactions, then there
can be no aggregation for determination of ALP
under IT Rules. [Knorr Bremse Systems for
Commercial Vehicles India (P.) Ltd. v Dy. CIT
[2019] 112 taxmann.com 289 (Pune - Trib.)]
*********
Disclaimer: Above said information are taken
from publically available resources and believed
to be accurate.

Tax Updates- Jan '20

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Tax Updates- Jan '20

Similar to Tax Updates- Jan '20 (20)

More from Reetika G Agarwal

More from Reetika G Agarwal (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Tax Updates- Jan '20