| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 2(47) |
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sunil Kumar Sood |
Capital Gains (Transfer): Land financed by HBPL was transferred to it in FY 2016-17 to settle a loan liability via an arbitral award. The transfer was effective only in that relevant year; adding it to FY 2006-07 was unjustified and deleted. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 41(1) |
Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner Income-tax |
Remission/Cessation of Trading Liability: AO passed the order without waiting for a final reply or granting a requested video conference. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a remand report despite new evidence. Matter restored for fresh adjudication. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 68 |
ACIT v. Kind Building Solutions (P.) Ltd. |
Unsecured Loans: Assessee provided full lender details, bank statements, audited financials, and paid interest via TDS. AO relied solely on past search data without fresh enquiry. Sec. 68 addition held unsustainable and deleted. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 72A |
Bharat Technologies Auto-Components Ltd. v. ITO |
Amalgamation Loss Carry Forward: AO denied benefits of a BIFR-sanctioned merger by relying on a Single Bench order that was later stayed by a Division Bench. Proper opportunity was not given; remanded to await the Division Bench outcome. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 92C |
Toyota Industries Engine India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Transfer Pricing (Comparable Selection): A selected comparable had contradictory related party transaction (RPT) disclosures in its annual report, exceeding the 30.25% threshold applied by the TPO. Excluded from TNMM analysis. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 92C |
Toyota Industries Engine India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Transfer Pricing (Depreciation Adjustment): Assessee experienced significantly higher depreciation in a capital-intensive industry versus its comparables. Suitable depreciation adjustments under TNMM must be examined to balance differences. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 92C |
Toyota Industries Engine India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Transfer Pricing (Entity vs Transaction Level): International transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) made up only 6.24% of total operating costs. TP adjustments cannot be made at the entity level; restricted strictly to AE transactions. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 92C |
Toyota Industries Engine India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Transfer Pricing (Persistent Loss Filter): TPO excluded two comparables using a persistent loss filter despite them making profits in one of the relevant years. Held: They are not persistent loss companies and must be included. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 143 |
Toyota Industries Engine India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Assessment Jurisdiction: Notice under Sec. 143(2) was issued before an intimation under Sec. 143(1). Subsequent adjustments made under Sec. 143(1) regarding GST and Sec. 43B disallowances were without jurisdiction and deleted. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 149 |
Veera Hanuman Filling Station v. Income-tax Officer |
Reopening Limitation: AY 2015-16 reopening notice under Sec. 148 was issued on 23.04.2022. Since the first proviso to Sec. 149 strictly bars such notices after 31.03.2022, the notice and subsequent assessment were quashed as time-barred. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 154 |
Jalgaon Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO |
Rectification Limitation: Order revising brought forward losses for AY 2015-16 was passed on 17.09.2021. Challenged as time-barred, but held valid as Sec. 3(1)(a) of TOLA and CBDT notifications extended the limitation period. |
Click Here |
| Income-tax Act, 1961 |
Sec. 271D |
Hiraman Ramchandra Rithe v. Union of India |
Penalty Abeyance: Where the underlying quantum assessment order under Sec. 147 is actively pending in appeal before the CIT(A), the penalty order under Sec. 271D and the demand notice must be set aside/kept in abeyance. |
Click Here |
