C O N T E N T Saiftponline.org › wp-content › uploads › journal › 2018 › ... · AIFTP Journal September 2018 3 C O N T E N T S Pg. 5 From the Editor-in-Chief — Dr. K

AIFTP Journal September 2018 3

C O N T E N T S Pg. 5 From the Editor-in-Chief — Dr. K. Shivaram

Pg. 9 President's Communique — Ganesh N. Purohit

Pg. 10 Section 14A – Issues settled by the Supreme Court — V. P. Gupta

Pg. 14 Reassessment : Section 147 – 153 — Ajay R. Singh

Pg. 46 Salient Features of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act as amended in 2016 — Narayan Jain & Dilip Loyalka

Pg. 55 Assessment in the GST Law — P. V. Subba Rao & Ramachandra Murthy

Pg. 59 Nut Crackers – Direct Taxes — H. N. Motiwalla

Pg. 62 Nut Crackers – Indirect Taxes — C. B. Thakar

Pg. 65 Quest : Opinion GST on sharing of expenses by holding company with subsidiary company — Vinayak Patkar & Ishaan Patkar

Pg. 68 National Tax Conference at Thane

Pg. 71 Prayagraj Tax Conference 2018 at Allahabad

AIFTPJ – 361


ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS

215, Rewa Chambers, 31, New Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 020. • Tel.: 22006342 / 49706343 Telefax: 22006343 • E-mail: [email protected] • Website: www.aiftponline.org

Membership of AIFTP as on 18-9-2018Life Members

Associate Individual Association Corporate TotalCentral 0 1016 25 3 1044Eastern 6 1472 36 3 1517Northern 0 1142 17 0 1159Southern 1 1249 19 7 1276Western 4 2292 37 4 2337Total 11 7171 134 17 7333

DISCLAIMERThe opinions and views expressed in this journal are those of the contributors.

The Federation does not necessarily concur with the opinions/views expressed in this journal.

ADVERTISEMENT TARIFF FOR AIFTP JOURNAL Particulars Per Insertion1. Quarter page .......................................................................` 1,500/-*2. Ordinary half page ..............................................................` 2,500/-*3. Ordinary full page ................................................................` 5,000/-*4. Third cover page .................................................................` 7,500/-* 5. Fourth cover page ...............................................................` 10,000/-*There shall be Discounts on bulk advertisements. * 5% GST as applicable.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means

Subscription Rates1. Life Membership of the AIFTP ` 2,500/-* ID Card Fees ` 100/-* Subscription of AIFTP Journal (for 1 year) ` 800/- Subscription of AIFTP Journal (for 3 years) ` 2,100/-2. For Non-Members Subscription of AIFTP Journal (for 1 year) ` 1,000/- Subscription of AIFTP Journal (for 3 years) ` 3,000/- Single copy of the AIFTP Journal ` 80/-3. Corporate Membership Nature of fees Type I Type II Type III Type IV (5 Yrs.) (10 Yrs.) (15 Yrs.) (20 Yrs.) ` ` ` ` Admission 500/-* 500/-* 500/-* 500/-* Subscription 5,000/- 7,500/- 11,500/- 15,000/- Total 5,500/- 8,000/- 12,000/- 15,500/-Note: Members may download the membership form from the website of AIFTP., i.e., www.aiftponline.org* 18% GST as applicable.

AIFTPJ – 362


From the Editor-in-Chief

Devinder Singh Gill v. DCIT (Chd) (Trib) (www. itatonline. org.), it was held that in spite of a stay

Court in CIT v. Hapur Pilkhuwa Development Authority (www.itatonline.org) ` 10 lakh on

PCIT v. International Biotech Park Ltd. (www.itatonline. org)

AIFTPJ – 363


Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (Bom) (HC) (www. itatonline. org),

earliest.


AIFTPJ – 364



In CIT v. Reliance Infrastructure (Bom.) (HC)(www.itatonline.org),

CIT v. State Bank of India (2015) 375 ITR 20 (Bom.) (HC)

CIT v. TCL India Holding Ltd. (www.itatonline.org)

`

`

`

`

AIFTPJ – 365



AIFTPJ – 366

FORTHCOMING PROGRAMMESDate & Month Programme Place6-10-2018 National Executive Committee Meeting Thane6, 7-10-2018 National Tax Conference (WZ) Thane24, 25-11-2018 Two Day Conference (NZ) Allahabad21-12-2018 National Executive Committee Meeting Guwahati22, 23-12-2018 21st National Tax Convention, 2018 (EZ) Guwahati

Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (1990) 2 SCALE 931.

Editor-in-Chief


National President

President's Communique

AIFTPJ – 367


Supreme Court has settled many important

videGodrej & Boyce

Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Anr. (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC); Commissioner of Income-tax v. Essar Teleholdings Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 445 (SC) and Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC). The

supra“what cannot be denied is that

the requirement for attracting the provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Act is proof of the fact that the expenditure sought to be disallowed/deducted had actually been incurred in earning the dividend income. Again in the judgment of Maxopp Investment (supra) vide para 32, the Hon’ble Court has held that “if an expenditure incurred has no casual connection with the exempted income, then such an expenditure would obviously be treated as not related to the income that is exempted from tax, and such, expenditure would be allowed as business expenditure. To put

it differently, such expenditure would then be considered as incurred in respect of other income which is to be treated as part of the total income.”

Vide

vide para 37 held that “whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the

law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee. It is only thereafter that the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become

Advocate

Section 14A – Issues settled by the Supreme Court

AIFTPJ – 368


applicable.”vide para 41

held that “having regard to the language of Section 14A(2) of the Act, read with Rule 8D of the Rules, we also make it clear that before applying the theory of apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo motu disallowance under Section 14A was not correct. It will be in those cases where the assessee in his return has himself apportioned but the AO was not accepting the said apportionment. In that eventuality, it will have to record its satisfaction to this effect. Further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares/making the investment in shares is to be examined by the AO.”

The Court vide

vide para 41 while holding

“further, while recording such a satisfaction, nature of loan taken by the assessee for purchasing the shares / making the investment in shares is to be examined by the AO.”

of Avon Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana.stated that the assessee had paid total interest of `

to ` `

`

`

interest of ` `

`


AIFTPJ – 369


` of total assets was `

`

`

of ` `

res judicata would not apply to assessment

vide`

` 49.90 lakh.

vide para 40

that while passing the assessment order

held “that the view of the CIT(A) was clearly untenable and rightly set aside by the ITAT. Therefore, on facts, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has arrived at a correct conclusion by

subscribing to the theory of dominant intention applied by the High Court”.


AIFTPJ – 370


has held that “we are of the opinion that the dominant purpose for which the investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant. No doubt, the assessee like Maxopp Investment Limited may have made the investment in order to gain control of the investee company. However, that does not appear to be a relevant factor in determining the issue at hand. Fact remains that such dividend income is not-taxable. In this scenario, if expenditure is incurred on earning the dividend income, that much of the expenditure which is attributable to the dividend income has to be disallowed and cannot be treated as business expenditure. Keeping this objective behind Section 14A of the Act in mind, the said provision has to be interpreted, particularly, the word ‘in relation to the income’ that does not form part of total income.” Similarly, in the case of State Bank of Patiala wherein shares had been held as stock-in-trade the Hon’ble Court vide para 38 has disagreed with the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court observing that “at the same time, we do not agree with the test of dominant intention applied by Punjab & Haryana High Court, which we have already discarded.”

dominant intention of holding the shares as vide

“The question is as to on what basis those cases are to be decided where shares of other companies are purchased by the assessee as ‘stock-in-trade’ and not as investment. We proceed to discuss this aspect hereinafter.” Supreme Court vide para 39 has held that “where shares are held as stock-in-trade, the

main purpose is to trade in those shares and earn profits therefrom. However, we are not

be treated as ‘income’ under the head ‘profits and gains from business and profession’. What happens is that, in the process, when the shares are held as ‘stock-in-trade’, certain dividend is also earned, though incidentally, which is also an income. However, by virtue of Section 10(34) of the Act, this dividend income is not to be included in the total income and is exempt from tax. This triggers the applicability of Section 14A of the Act which is based on the theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income as held in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P Ltd. case. Therefore, to that extent, depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned".

“depending upon the facts of each case, the expenditure incurred in acquiring those shares will have to be apportioned". In other

vide

Court.


AIFTPJ – 371


as a matter of right to reopen the assessments

assessment.

assessment year.

assessment.

GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. D.C.I.T. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)

Advocate

Reassessment : Section 147 – 153

AIFTPJ – 372


assessment after the assessment order is

fulfilment renders the initiation itself ab-initio

certiorari will not issue against

them to ensure that an order for reopening of an

supra

Pr. CIT v. Samcor Glass Ltd. Delhi High Court www.itatonline.org

CIT v. Trend Electronics (2015) 379 ITR 456 (Bom.)(HC).

Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.)(HC)

one, the Writ Court should not entertain the Writ

passes a reassessment order without following the GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)and waiting 4 weeks thereafter as held in Allana Cold Storage Ltd v. ITO (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bom.)(HC), Kamlesh Sharma (Smt.) v. B. L. Meena, ITO (2006)287 ITR 337 (Delhi)(HC).

CIT v. Chhabil Das Agarwal. (2013) 357 ITR 357 (SC)

and pursuant thereto passed a re-assessment


AIFTPJ – 373


Annamalai University v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 80 (Mad.) (HC) the assessee had

of the assessments for the assessment years 1999-

that the assessee was entitled to seek reasons for

of Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 393 ITR 637 JCIT v. Kalanithi Maran, [2014] 366 ITR 453(Mad.) (HC) that

Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 275 CTR 49 / 229 Taxman 545 (Bom).

Suprathat the reassessment order was passed and

Thus an assessee is entitled to writ remedy under

the authorities in reopening the assessment was Cedric De Souza Faria. v.

DCIT (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bom.) (HC)

in law [CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 302 / 301 CTR 38 (Bom.)

It is now a settled position of law that for passing

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd v. DCIT (2008) 15 DTR (Guj.) 1

Nandlal Tejmal Kothari v. Inspecting ACIT (1998) 230 ITR 943 (SC)

opportunity.

CIT vs. Safetag International India Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 332 ITR 622 (Delhi High Court)

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom.)

CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. ITA No. 71 of 2006 dated 27th November, 2006, has held that though the reopening of assessment was within three years

were not furnished to the assessee till date the

CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. vide


AIFTPJ – 374


• Tata International Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 52 SOT 465 (Mum.)

• DCIT v. Telco Dadajee Dhakjee Ltd. [2012] 49 SOT 549 (Mum) (TM)

• Muller & Philpps (India) Ltd. v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.); (2016) 47 ITR 69 (Mum.) (Trib.)

• Jeevanlal Jain ITA No. 910/M/2014 dt. 13/01/2016, Bench J; (Mum.) (Trib.)

• Inderjeet Singh Sachdeva v. DCIT [2017] 49 ITR(T) 1(Delhi)(Trib.),

• Ujagar Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO[2017] 51 ITR(T) 343 (Delhi)(Trib)

• M/s. Synopsys International Ltd (Bang.) ITA no. 549/Bang/2011.

law.

Prashanth Projects Ltd. v. CIT,[2011] 333 ITR 368, (Bom.) (HC)

assessee and it went to the root of the matter, the

Vinoda B. Jain v. JCIT, ITA No. 676/M/2014 dt. 24-9-2014, AY 1991-92, (Mumbai ITAT) (www.ctconline.org)

Hon. Bombay High Court Asian Paint Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom)(HC).

Meta Plast Engineering P. Ltd. v. ITO, ITA NO. 5780/Del/2014, dtd: 6-4-2018 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org.

IOT Infrastructure and Eng. Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 547 (Bom.)

Allana Cold Storage v. ITO (2006) 287 ITR 1 (Bom.) wherein

of Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC)

Bayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.)(HC)

towards the end of the limitation period and passing a reassessment order without dealing with


AIFTPJ – 375


that the order passed without disposing of

all the authorities. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO

Jayanthi Natarajan (Ms.) v. ACIT (2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.) (HC)

of Home Finders Housing Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 256 Taxman 59(SC)

delay.

Pransukhlal Bros. v. ITO (2015) 229 Taxman 444 (Bom.)(HC) wherein assessment of

reasons.

Scan Holding P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 290 (Delhi) (HC) held allowing the appeal

Karti P. Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488 (Mad.)(HC) the Court

reopening of assessment and without passing a

Venkatesan Raghuram Prasad v. ITO (2018) 94 taxmann.com 249 (Madras), Where

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom.)


AIFTPJ – 376


Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851

Mrs. Usha A Kalwani v. S. N. Soni [2004] 272 ITR 67 (Bom)

Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B. S. Singh, Dy. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom.)

Aroni Commercial Ltd. v. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom.)

Northem Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2013) 362 ITR 586 (Del.)

3i Infotech Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 329 ITR 257 (Bom.)

Plus Paper Food Pac Ltd. v. ITO (2015) 374 ITR 485 (Bom.)(HC)

Prashant s. Joshi v. ITO[2010]324 ITR 154 (Bom.)

Sabharwal Properties Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 382 ITR 547 (Delhi)(HC)

GKN Sinter Metals Ltd. v. Ramapriya Raghavan (Ms.), ACIT (2015) 371 ITR 225 (Bom.)(HC)

Pransukhlal Bros. v. ITO (2015) 229 Taxman 444 (Bom.)(HC)

reasons.

Varshaben Sanatbhai Patel v. ITO (2016) 282 CTR 75 (Guj.)(HC) it was

Indivest PTE Ltd v. ADDIT (2012) 250 CTR 15 / 206 Taxman 351 (Bom.)


AIFTPJ – 377


assessment was reopened on the ground that no

– Hyoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2008) 307 ITR 115 (Guj.)

– Charanjiv Lal Aggarwal v. ITO (2017) 54 ITR 349 (Amritsar) (Trib.)

– CIT & Anr v. Aslam Ullakhan (2010) 321 ITR 150 (Kar.)

ACIT v. Resham Petrotech Ltd. (2012) 136 ITD 185 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

Smriti Kedia (Smt.) v. UOI (2012) 71 DTR 245 / 250 CTR 221 (Cal.)

ITO v. Rajender Prasad Gupta (2010) 48 DTR 489 (JD)(Trib.)


AIFTPJ – 378


CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. (2012) 248 CTR 33 (Delhi)(High Court)

CIT v. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. (2015) 128 DTR 217 (Delhi)(HC)

Pr. CIT v. G. Pharma India Ltd. [2017] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi) (HC)

CIT v. Insecticides (India) Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 300 (Del.)(HC)

CIT v. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 395 ITR 677(Del) (HC)

CIT v. Fair Invest Ltd. (2013) 357 ITR 146 (Del.)(HC)

Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110

ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC) wherein it was

per se is not an information for the purpose of reopening

CIT v. Indo Arab Air Services (2016) 130 DTR 78/ 283 CTR 92 (Delhi)(HC)

prima facie

prima facie

assessment.

10.4 The power to reopen an assessment is

Aventis Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom.)

PCIT v. Manzil Dineshkumar Shah [2018] 95 taxmann.com 46 (Guj.) HC), the Court

Amar Jewellers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 254 Taxman 384 (Guj.)(HC) the Court held

law.

Deepraj Hospital (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 41/AGRA/2017, AY: 2010-11 Dtd. 1-6-2018 (Agra)(Trib.),

to the information and formed his own opinion.


AIFTPJ – 379


ITO v. Reliance Corporation (2017) 55 ITR 69 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.)

Laxmiraj Distributors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 53 ITR 376 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

DCIT v. VSB Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 16 (Delhi) (Trib.)

Jayant Security & Finance Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 254 Taxman 81 (Guj.)(HC) the

Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 253 Taxman 141 (Raj.)(HC) the Court

Virbhadra Singh v. Dy. CIT (2017) 291 CTR 439/ 146 DTR 65 (HP)(HC)

PCIT v. Paramount Communication P. Ltd. (2017) 392 ITR 444 (Delhi)(HC)

Aravali Infrapower Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 390 ITR 456 (Delhi)(HC)

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105 (Guj.) (HC)

Rajnish Jain. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 12 (All.) (HC)

inserted

Sunita Jain (Smt.) v. ITO, ITA No. 502/Ahd/2016, AY 2008-09 dtd: 9-3-2017 (Ahd.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

Rachna Sachin Jain (Smt.) v. ITO (Ahd.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

Praful Chunilal Patel v. M. J. Makwana, ACIT (1999) 236 ITR 832 (Guj.)

(A.Y. 1991-92)

JCIT & Ors v. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. (2002) 258 ITR 126 (Guj.)

Kothari Metals v. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 581 (Karn.)(HC)


AIFTPJ – 380


Alliance Space P. Ltd. v. ITO (2015) 375 ITR 473 (Bom.)(HC)

Subhash Chander Goel v. ITO (2016) 156 ITD 808 (Chd.)(Trib.)

AMSA India P. Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 393 ITR 157/ 82 taxmann.com 29 (Delhi)( HC) the Court held that the statement of third person not

Kamla Devi S. Doshi v. ITO (2017) 57 ITR 1 (Mum.) (Trib.)

vis-a- vis

Rajat Saurabh Chatterji v. ACIT ITA NO. 2430/Del/2015, AY 2007-08 dtd: 20-5-2016 (Delhi)(Trib) www.itatonline.org.

ab initio.

o assessee.

P.Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 45 ITR 517 (Mum.)(Trib.)

Rayoman Carriers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.) (Trib.)

CIT v. Late K. M. Bijli (2017) 390 ITR 402 (Delhi) (HC), the Court held that; the

Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC) analysed


AIFTPJ – 381


CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC) it was held that the assessment

[United Shippers Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 371 ITR 441 (Bom.)]

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2016) 381 ITR 387 (Delhi)(HC)

[Banke Bihar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib.)(supra) www.itatonline.org] [Sunil Agarwal v. ITO ITA No. 988/Del/2018, AY. 2008-09 dtd: 24-5-2018 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org]

Kalpana Chimanlal Shah v. ITO,[2018] 94 taxmann.com 252 (Guj) (HC)

therefore, reopening of assessments for those years

CIT v. Gupta Abhushan (P) Ltd. (2008) 16 DTR (Del) 76

13.7

Hemant Traders v. ITO (2015) 375 ITR 167 (Bom.)(HC)

Alfa Radiological Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2015) 44 ITR 184 (Chandigarh)(Trib.)


AIFTPJ – 382


Motto Tiles P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 386 ITR 280 (Guj.)(HC)

Balakrishna H. Wani v. ITO 321 ITR 519 (Bom.)

Krown Agro Foods P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 375 ITR 460 (Delhi) (HC)

DCIT v. Dr. M. J. Naidu (2017) 59 ITR 13 (SN) (Vishakha) (Trib)

Suresh M. Bajaj v. ITO ITA NO. 7/Del/2013, AY 2005-06, dtd: 19-2-2016 (Delhi)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org

15.1 Sagar Enterprises v. ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 335 (Guj)

Shri Harakchand K. Gada (HUF) v. ITO ITA No.2800/Mum/2014, dtd. 09/12/2015 (Mum.) (Trib.)

KMV Collegiate Sr. Sec. School v. ITO (2017) 163 ITD 653 (Asr.) (Trib.)

Baba Kartar Singh Dukki Educational Trust v. ITO (2016) 158 ITD 965 (Chd.)(Trib.)

Van Oord Dredging and Marine Contractors BV vs. ADIT – ITA No. 495, 496/Mum/2016 (Mum)(Trib.) dtd. February 28, 2018.

a) Bhor Industries Ltd. v. ACIT – [(2004) 267 ITR 161 (Bom)]

b) Hindusthan Lever Ltd. v. R. B. Wadkar, ACIT – [(2004) 268 ITR 332 (Bom)]

c) Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [(2004) 269 ITR 186 (Bom.)]

d) Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. ACIT – [(2004) 267 ITR 200 (Bom.)]

e) Pr. CIT v. G & G Pharma India Ltd. [2017] 383 ITR 147 (Delhi)(HC)

Universal Power Systems (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2017][48 ITR (Tribunal) 191 (Chennai)]

reassessment.

CIT v. Maniben Velji Shah (2006) 283 ITR 453 (Bom.)(High Court)


AIFTPJ – 383


Banke Bihar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO ITA NO. 5128/M/2015 dt. 22-4-2016 (A.Y. 2006-07) (Delhi)(Trib.) I

Explanation 2 of s. 147

Rajendra Goud Chepur v. ITO (AP&T)(HC); www.itatonline.org

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.)

CIT v. Best Wood [2011] 331 ITR 63 Ker. FB.

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd v. CIT (2011) 60 DTR 77(Delhi) (High Court

Supra

Hotel Regal International & Anr. v. ITO (2010) 320 ITR 573 (Cal)

to reopen the assessment on ground that `

• ITO v. Bidbhanjan Investment & Trading CO (P ) Ltd ( 2011) 59 DTR 345 (Mum.) (Trib.)

• Dy. CIT v. Takshila Educational Society (2016) 131 DTR 332/ 284 CTR 306 (Pat.) (HC)

• Anugrah Varhney v. ITO ITA NO. 134/Agra/2014 dt. 5-4-2016 [A.Y. 2003-04] (Agra)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org

CIT v. Mani Kakkar (2009) 18 DTR (Del.) 145 (Asst Yr 2001-02)


AIFTPJ – 384


Kanubhai M. Patel (HUF) v. HIren Bhatt (2010) 43 DTR 329 (Guj.)

CIT v. Major Tikka Khushwat Singh [1995] 212 ITR 650 (SC)

R. K. Upadhaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel (1987) 166 ITR 163 (SC)

Y. Narayan Chetty v. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC),

CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC)

CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)

Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani v. C.P. Meena, Dy. CIT (2017) 392 ITR 571 / 149 DTR 49 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial

Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani v. C. P. Meena, Dy. CIT (2016) 389 ITR 7 (St.)

Suraj Mal HUF v. ITO (2007) 109 ITD 327 (Del.)(TM).

Khurana Engineering Ltd. v. DCIT (2013) 217 Taxman 75 (Guj.)(HC)

Skylight Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (2018) 254 Taxman 390 (SC)

Editorial Skylight Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (2018) 254 Taxman 109 (Delhi) (HC)

Techpac Holdings Ltd. v. Dy CIT [(2016) 135 DTR (Bombay HC) 322] it was

CIT v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. (2017) 390 ITR 381 (All.) (HC)

Jaydeepkumar Dhirajlal Thakkar v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 302 (Guj.) (HC)


AIFTPJ – 385


ITO v. Dharam Narain (2018) 253 CTR 479 (SC)

CIT v. Harish J. Punjabi (2008) 297 ITR 424 (Del.)

Arunlal v. ACIT (2010) 1 ITR 1 (Trib.) (Agra) (TM)

Sheo Murti Singh (Dr.) v. CIT (2016) 383 ITR 174 (All.)(HC)

ITO v. Om Prakash Kukreja (2016) 134 DTR (Chd. Trib.) 208 it was held

and the resultant assessment order are null and

him and also to make mention of his efforts

he did so and the name and address of the


AIFTPJ – 386


one stroke. It was not known as to why

30-9-2012. Nor there is any entry in the note-

and annulled.

Sanjay Badani v. DCIT [2014] 35 ITR (T) 536 (ITAT Mumbai)

Auram Jewellery Exports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 54 ITR 1 (Delhi) (Trib.)

The failure to do so renders the reassessment (CWT v. HUF of H. H. Late Shri. J.M.

Scindia (2008) 300 ITR 193 (Bom.).

onwards.

• CIT v. Salman Khan Appeal No. 508 OF 2010 dt. 06/06/2011 (Bom.)(HC)www.itatonline.org.

• CIT v. Mundra Nanvati [2009] 227 CTR 387 (Bom.)(HC)

• CIT v. Virendra Kumar Agarwal Appeal No. 2429 of 2009 DT. 7/1/2010 (Bom.)

• Dy. CIT v. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (2016) 130 DTR 241 (Delhi)(Trib.)

PCIT v. Silver Line (2016) 383 ITR 455 (Delhi)(HC). The ratio is followed in

Alok Mittal v. DCIT (2017) 167 ITD 325 (Kol.) (Trib.)

Anil Kumar v. ITO (2017) 55 ITR 97 (Asr.) (Trib.)

CIT v. Qatalys Software Technology [2009] 308 ITR 249 (Mad)

Super Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2010) 38 SOT 14 (Chennai)(TM)(Trib.)

for making reassessment, when time limit is

CIT v. TCP Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 346 (Mad.)

Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT – [(2000) 242 ITR 381 (SC)]

Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax – [(1964) 51 ITR 557 (SC)]

CIT v. S. Raman Chettiar – [(1965) 55 ITR 630 (SC)]

Commercial Art Press v. CIT – [(1978) 115 ITR 876 (All.)]

A.S.S.P & Co. v. CIT – [(1988) 172 ITR 274 (Mad.)]

CIT v. P. Krishnakutty Menon – [(1990) 181 ITR 237 (Ker)]


AIFTPJ – 387


Indian Tube Co. Ltd. v. ITO – [(2005) 272 ITR 439 (Cal)]

CIT v. Rajendra G. Shah (247 ITR 372) (Bom.) [in favour of assessee]

Jimmy F. Bilimoria [ITA No.6063/Mum/2012] (against the assessee)

XL India Business Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 67 SOT 117/167 TTJ 467 (Delhi)(Trib.)

CIT v. Shamlal Bajaj (2014)222 Taxman 173 (Mag.) (Mad.)(HC)

CIT v. Jora Singh (2013) 215 Taxman 424 / 262 CTR 630 (All.)(HC)

Vardhman Holdings Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 158 ITD 843 (Chd.)(Trib.)

the assessee at the time of original assessment,

German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom.)

CIT v. Former Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566 (SC)

Tata Business Support Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 232 Taxman 702 (Bom.)(HC)

Tirupati Foam Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 493 (Guj.)(HC)

Gujarat Eco Textile Park Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 372 ITR 584 (Guj.)(HC)

Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.)(HC)

Balakrishna Hiralal Wani v. ITO (2010) 321 ITR 519 (Bom.)

Dempo Brothers Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom.) (HC)

Golden Tobacco Limited v. DCI [2017] 48 ITR (T) 132(Mum.)(Trib.)

DIT v. Rolls Royal Industries Power India Ltd. [2017] 394 ITR 547 (Delhi)(HC)

ACIT v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (2017) 185 TTJ 123 (Mum.) (Trib.)

Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. DCIT (2018) 253 Taxman 490 (Guj.)(HC)

there was a failure on the part of the assessee

end of the assessment year.

Purity Techtextile (P) Ltd. v. ACIT & Anr. (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom.) (HC)

CIT v. Central Warehousing Corporation (2015) 371 ITR 81 (Delhi) (HC).


AIFTPJ – 388


petition, the Court held that an attempt

harassment of the petitioner.

Vodafone South Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 363 ITR 388 (Delhi)(HC)

issued on the ground that in the similar line of

Court allowed the writ petition and held that there

Sound Casting(P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 250 CTR 119 (Bom.)

Tao Publishing (P) Ltd..v. Dy. CIT (2015) 370 ITR 135 (Bom.)

Tata Business Support Services Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 121 DTR 222/ 232 Taxman 702 (Bom)

Micro Inks P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 393 ITR 366/ 246 Taxman 143 (Guj.)(HC)

Navkar Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 393 ITR 362 (Guj.)(HC)

information.

Where the assessee had made full and true

in his audit report, reopening of assessment

NYK Line (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 68 DTR 90 (Bom.)(High Court)

22.6

Titanor Components Limited v. ACIT (2011) 60 DTR 273 (Bombay)


AIFTPJ – 389


Honda Motor Co. Ltd. v. ADCIT (2018) 301 CTR 601 /255 Taxman 72 (SC)

German Remedies Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 494 (Bom.) (AY. 1997-99)

CIT v. Suman Waman Chaudhary (2010) 321 ITR 495 (Bom.)

SLP dismissed on 12-2-2008 (2009) 312 ITR 339 (St.)

CIT v. S. Goyanka Lines & Chemical Ltd. (2016) 237 Taxman 378 (SC)

United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Ors (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del.)

Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 372 ITR 421 (Cal.) (HC)

Maruti Clean Coal And Power Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 400 ITR 397 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)

ITO v. Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. ITA NO. 89/Del/2012 dt. 9-2-2018 (A.Y. 2005-06)(Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

Sunil Agarwal v. ITO [2002] 83 ITD 1 (TM) (Delhi)(Trib.),

Banke Bihar Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib) [Supra];

Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2011) 51 DTR 51 (Del.) (HC)

Dy. CIT v. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (2016) 130 DTR 241/ 175 TTJ 217 (Delhi)(Trib.)

PCIT v. N. C. Cables Ltd. (2017) 391 ITR 11/ 149 DTR 90 (Delhi)(HC)

Anil Jaggi. v. CIT (2018) 168 ITD 599 (Mum.) (Trib.)

23.4

Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v. ACIT ( 2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom.)(HC)

DSJ Communication Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2014) 222 Taxman 129 (Bom.)(HC)

Purse Holdings India P. Ltd. v. ADDIT (IT)( 2016) 143 DTR 1(Mum.)(Trib.)

Yum! Restaurants Asia Pte Ltd. v. Dy. DIT (No.1) (2017) 397 ITR 639 (Delhi) (HC)

CIT v. Gee Kay Finance And Leasing Co. Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 472 (Delhi) (HC) it was

Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner under sine qua non


AIFTPJ – 390


Mistry Lalji Narsi Development Corp. v. ACIT (2010) 229 CTR 359 (Bom.)

Yash Raj Films P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2011) 332 ITR 428 (Bom.)

CIT v. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 762 (Bom.)

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. v. J. P. Janjid (2014) 225 Taxman 81(Mag.) / (Bom.)(HC); CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2012] 349 ITR 76 (Bom.) (HC),

original assessment as well as reopened asst.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) (HC)

The CIT-8. v. M/s. Advance Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.77 of 2014; Dt. 28-6-2016 (Bombay High Court)]

Crescent Construction Co. v. ACIT (2017) 188 TTJ 497 (Mum.) (Trib.)

Muniwar Abad Charitable Trust v. ACIT (E) (2017) 59 ITR 204 Mum) (Trib.)

Gujarat Mall Management Company Private Limited v. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 329 (Guj.) (HC)

Cedric De Souza Faria. v. DCIT (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bom.) (HC)

CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd (2002) 254 ITR 791 (SC)

Arthus Anderson & Co. v. ACIT (2010) 324 ITR 240 (Bom.)

Considering the decision against of Dr. Amin’s Pathology Lab v. P.N. Prasad (2001) 252 ITR 673 (Bom.)

CIT v. Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2015) 375 ITR 561 (Guj.)(HC)

ACIT v. M.P. Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 446 (Indore) (Trib.)


AIFTPJ – 391


CIT v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 389 (Ker.) (HC)

ICICI Securities Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 231 Taxman 460 (Bom.)(HC)

Business India v. DCIT(2015) 370 ITR 154/299 Taxman 289 (Bom.) (HC)

Prashant Project Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2011) 333 ITR 368 (Bom.)

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 534 (Bom.)

Betts India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 235 Taxman 77 (Bom.)(HC)

Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd. v. ACIT (2012) 340 ITR 299 (Bom.)

Hamdard Laboratories (India) & Anr. v. ADIT(E) (2015) 379 ITR 393 (Delhi)(HC)

Dempo Brothers Pvt Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 196 (Bom.) (HC )

ACIT v. Kalyani Hayes Lemmerz Ltd. (Bom.) (HC)

Kotarki Constructions (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 162 DTR 49 (Karn.) (HC)

German Remedies Ltd. v. DCIT & Ors (2006) 285 ITR 26 (Bom.)

Siemens Information System Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 295 ITR 333 (Bom.)

Godrej Agrovet Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2011] 323 ITR 97 (Bom.)

Capgemini India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 232 Taxman 149 (Bom.)(HC)

Friends of WWB India v. DIT (2018) 402 ITR 350 (Guj.) (HC)

CIT v. Aroni Commercial Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 673 (Bom.)

United States Pharmacopiea India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2017) 57 ITR 312 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

Vijay Harishchandra Patel. v. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 167 (Guj.) (HC)

Pr. CIT v. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd. [Income tax Appeal No. 1367 of 2015 dt. 03/04/2018 (Bombay High Court)]

Asst. CIT v. Rolta India Ltd ( 2011)132 ITD 98 (Mumbai) (TM) (Trib.)

Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. SICOM Ltd. [Income tax Appeal No. 137 of 2014 dt : 08/08/2016 (Bombay High Court)].


AIFTPJ – 392


Cliantha Research Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2014) 225 Taxman 102 (Mag.) (Guj.)(HC)

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 256 ITR 1 (Del.) (FB) (AY. 1997-1998)

Approved by Supreme Court in (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC)

ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10/ 302 CTR 74 (SC)

prima facie some

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO and Others (1999) 236 ITR 34 (S.C.)

Yuvraj v. Union Of India (2009) 315 ITR 84. (Bom.)

a. Asteroids Trading & Investment P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2009) 308 ITR 190 (Bom.)

Asian Paints Ltd. v. DCIT (2008) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.) (198)

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 471 (Bom.)

d. Aventis Pharma Ltd. v. Astt. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 570 (Bom.) (577)

e. Nirmal Bang Securities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT. (2016) 382 ITR 93 (Bom.)(HC)

f. Aryan Arcade Ltd v. DCIT (2017) 390 ITR 67 (Guj.)(HC)

CIT v. Srusti Diam (2015) 232 Taxman 127 (Bom.)(HC) ; PCIT v. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 41 (All.) (HC)

Orient News Prints Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2017) 393 ITR 527 (Guj.)(HC); Ajanta Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 402 ITR 72 (Guj.) (HC)

DIT v. Rolls Royce Industries Pvt. India Ltd.[Supra] (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

Golden Tobacco Limited v. DCI ITA No. 5858 & 5859 /M/2012 dt. 28-10-2015 (A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07)(Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org

Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. ACIT (2016) 47 ITR 198 (Delhi) (Trib.)

PCIT v. Anil Nagpal (2017) 291 CTR 272/ 145 DTR 209 (P&H)(HC)


AIFTPJ – 393


Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 177 (Guj.) (HC)

Giriraj Steel v. DCIT (2018) 402 ITR 204 (Guj.) (HC)

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand Civil Appeal No. 5390 of 2007 dt. 21/03/2017 (SC) www.itatonline. org

any reason as to why he has departed from the

de-novo

Asian Cerc Information Services (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2007) 293 ITR 271 (Bom.)

reopened the assessment pursuant to audit

IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. v. ITO & Ors. (2008) 298 ITR 32 (Bom.) (AY. 2003-2004)

CIT v. Rajan N. Aswani (2018) 403 ITR 30 (Bom.)(HC)

Vijaykumar M. Hirakhanwala (HUF) v. ITO & Ors (2006) 287 ITR 443 (Bom.) (AYs. 1997-1998 to 1999-2001 to 2002-2003)

CIT v. Lucuns TVS Ltd. [2001] 249 ITR 306 (SC)

Prothious Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2016) 46 ITR 438 (Mum.)(Trib.)

Purity Tech Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 459 (Bom.)

CIT v. DRM Enterprises (2015) 230 Taxman 61/ 120 DTR 401 (Bom.)(HC)

Reckit Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2017) 392 ITR 336 (Guj.)(HC)

Torrent Power S.E.C. Ltd v. ACIT (2017) 392 ITR 330 (Guj.)(HC)

Mehsana District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. v. ACIT [2018] 93 Taxmann.com 219 (Guj.)(HC)

Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC)

Adani Exports v. DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj) (AY. 1993-94)

means he has not applied his mind independently

Raajratna Metal Industries Ltd v. ACIT [2014] 227 Taxman 133 (Gujarat High Court)

National Construction Co. v. Jt. CIT (2015) 234 Taxman 332 (Guj.)(HC)

Shree Ram Builders v. ACIT (OSD) (2015) 377 ITR 631 (Guj.)(HC)

vis-à-vis


AIFTPJ – 394


Sunil Gavaskar v. ITO (2016) 134 DTR (Mumbai ITAT) 113

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 381 ITR 387/ 237 Taxman 709 (Delhi)(HC)

AVTEC Ltd. v. DCIT (2015) 370 ITR 611 (Delhi)(HC)

Assam Co. Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. (2005) 275 ITR 609 (Gau.)

N. Seetharaman v. CIT (2008) 298 ITR 210 (Mad.) (AYs. 1989-1990 to 1999-2000)

of the Commissioner. The Supreme Court in the

year held that the assessment order passed on

CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC).

Indra Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1971) 80 ITR 559 (Cal.)(AY 1959-1960)

SESA Goa Ltd. v. Jt CIT [2007] 294 ITR 101 (Bom)

CIT v. ITW India Ltd. (2015) 377 ITR 195 (P & H)(HC)

Kartikeya International v. CIT (2010) 329 ITR 539 (All.)

Asst. CIT v. Central Warehousing Corp. (2012) 67 DTR 356 (Delhi)

• Denish Industries Ltd. v. ITO [2004] 271 ITR 340 (Guj.) (346)

SLP dismissed (2005) 275 ITR 1 (St.)

• Rallies India Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 323 ITR 54 (Bom.)

• SGS India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 292 ITR 93 (Bom.)

reopening not proper.

• Siemens Information Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 293 ITR 548 (Bom.)


AIFTPJ – 395


• Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2012] () 333 ITR 483 (Guj.)

• Kalpataru Sthapatya (P) Ltd. (2012) 68 DTR 221 (Guj.)(High Court)

Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2013] 350 ITR 131 (Guj.) (High Court)

2009, inserting Explanation

Pravin Kumar Bhogilal Shah v. ITO (2012) 66 DTR 236 (Guj.)(High Court)

Vinayak Construction v. ITO (2012) 66 DTR 233 (Guj.)(High Court)

(2008) 298 ITR 163 (St), – Notes on clauses.

(2008) 298 ITR St. 222 to 224 Memorandum explaining the provision.

Metro Auto Corporation v. ITO (2006) 286 ITR 618 (Bom.)

Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. v. ACIT (2010) 37 DTR 259 (Guj.)

Chika Overseas (P) Ltd. v. ITO ( 2011) 131 ITD 471 (Mum.) (Trib).

ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2012) 246 CTR 292/ 204 Taxman 65 (Mag.)(Bom.)(High Court)

CIT v. Flothern Engineers (P.) Ltd. (2014) 225 Taxman 223 (Mag.)(Mad.)(HC)

Nivi Trading Limited v. UOI [2015] 375 ITR 308 (Bom.)(HC);

There was no failure on part of assessee to

of original assessment was merged with

• CIT v. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2013) 81 DTR 130 / 255 CTR 357 (Bom.)(HC)

• Allana Sons Ltd. v. ACIT (2015) 230 Taxman 436 (Bom.)(HC)

• GTL Ltd. v. Asst CIT (2015) 37 ITR 376 (Mum.)(Trib.).

• Radhaswami Salt Works v. ACIT (Guj.)(HC); www.itatonline.org


AIFTPJ – 396


appeal

Investment Corpn. Ltd. v. CIT (1992) 194 ITR 548 (Bom.) (556)

N. Nagaganath Iyer v. CIT (1996) 60 ITR 647 (Bom.) (655)

Hemal Knitting Industries v. ACIT (2010) 127 ITD 160 (Chennai)(TM)

35.2 If assessee does not ask for the reasons

another opportunity. CIT vs. Safetag Int. India Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 332 ITR 622 (Del.) (HC.)

Teena Gupta v. CIT (All.)(HC); www.itatonline.org [referred Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd.]

running of limitation. (AY. 2012-13 to 2014-15) Elite Pharmaceuticals v. ITO (2017) 152 DTR 226/297 CTR 428 (Cal.) (HC)

CIT v. LalitKumar Bardia (2018) 404 ITR 63 wherein the Court held that though the assessee has taken part

35.6 Similarly in Tata Sons Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 162 ITD 450 (Mum.) (Trib.)

Sunrolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1986) 160 ITR 412 (Cal.)

P. N.Sasikumar & Ors. v. CIT (1988) 170 ITR 80 (Ker.)

Westun Outdoor Interactive (P) Ltd v. A.K. Phute, ITO & Ors. (2006) 286 ITR 620 (Bom.) (AY. 2000-2001)

154 or S. 263 and not S. 147 further reassessment

Smt. Jamila Ansari v. ITO & Anr (1997) 225 ITR 490 (Addl.)


AIFTPJ – 397


• Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2011) 325 ITR 102 (Bom.)

• CIT v. EID Parry Ltd. [(1995) 216 ITR 489 (Mad)]

other.

ab inito

material or information was in the possession of

Mahinder Freight Carriers v. Dy CIT ( 2011) 56 DTR 247 (Mum) (Trib.).

• Berger Paint India Ltd. v. ACIT & Ors. [(2010) 322 ITR 369 (Cal.)]

• Jethalal K. Morbia v. ACIT [(2007) 109 TTJ (Mum.) 1]

• S.M. Overseas P. Ltd. v. ACIT [(2009) 23 DTR (Del) (Trib.) 29]

• CIT v. Jandu Construction Co. (2018) 61 ITR 235 (Chand.) (Trib.)

• CIT v. India Sea Foods [(2011) 54 DTR (Ker.) 223]

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2011) 197 Taxman 415 (Delhi). Honda Siel Power Products Ltd v. DCIT [2016] 240 Taxman 576 (SC).

Prakash Chand v. Dy. CIT & Ors. (2004) 269 ITR 260 (MP) (AY. 1997-2001)

Girdhar Gopal Gulati vs. UOI (2004) 269 ITR 45 (All.)

for the purpose of initiating reassessment and

ab initio, more so when

CIT v. Smt. Meena Devi Mansighka (2008) 303 ITR 351


AIFTPJ – 398


37.4

prima facie

ITO v. Santosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 337 (Cal.)(AY. 1973-1974)

ITO v. Shiv Shakti Build Home (P) Ltd. ( 2011) 141 TTJ 123 (Jodhpur) (Trib).

Akshar Infrastructure P. Ltd. v. ITO (2017) 393 ITR 658 (Guj.)(HC)

CIT v. P. Nithilan. (2018) 403 ITR 154 (Mad) (HC)

37.5

per se is not an information for the

reopen the assessment.

Assistant CIT vs. Dhariya Consturction Co. (2010) 328 ITR 515

CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC)

K. Sudhakar S. Shanbhag v. ITO (2000) 241 ITR 865 (Bom.)

CIT v. Caixa Economica De Goa ( 1994) 210 ITR 719 (Bom).

ITO v. Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd. (2010) 124 ITD 156 (Chennai)(TM)

Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2016) 46 ITR 728 (Bang.)(Trib.)

assessment.

Dr. H. Habicht V. Makhija (1985) 154 ITR 552 (Bom.) (AY. 1975-1977)


AIFTPJ – 399


opinion.

Asstt. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd.

(2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) (AY. 2001-2002)

CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. (2015) 373 ITR 661(SC)

Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (Supra) and the same

sine qua non

Khubchandani Healthparks Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2016] 384 ITR 322 (Bom.)(HC)

1. Prashant Joshi v. ITO [(2010) 324 ITR 154 (Bom.)]

2. Bapalal & Co. v. Jt. CIT – [(2007) 289 ITR 37 (Mad.)]

3. Aipta Marketing P. Ltd. v. ITO - [(2008) 21 SOT 302 (Mum.)]

4. Pirojsha Godrej Foundation v. ADIT (E) – [(2010) 133 TTJ (Mum.) 194]

5. Rajgarh Liquors v. CIT - [(2004) 89 ITD 84 (Ind.)]

not made.

and forming opinion thereof.

Sarthak Securities Co. (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110


AIFTPJ – 400


1. Asian Paints v. Dy. CIT & Anr. – [(2009) 308 ITR 195 (Bom.)]

2. Audco India Ltd. v. ITO – [(2010) 39 SOT 481 (Mum)]

3. Dy. CIT v. Pasupati Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. – [(2010) 6 ITR (Trib.) 689 (Del.)]

issued at any time for the purpose of making an

40.2. ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC)

K. M. Sharma v. ITO [2002] 254 ITR 772 (SC)

of Rakesh N Dutt v. Asst CIT (2009) 311 ITR 247

that the addition of `

assessee. There was no finding that the amount of `

CIT v. Green World Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC).

of CIT v. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (106) SC


AIFTPJ – 401


allowed and held that the amount assessed as

for assessment year 2000-01 and not assessment

Shri Anil Suri v. ITO 11(1)(3); [2014] 66 SOT (Mum. ITAT)

149 (Guj.) (High Court)

assessee and reopening of the assessment made


AIFTPJ – 402


Vadilal Dairy International Ltd. v. Asst CIT (2011) 140 TTJ 371 (Ahd.) (Trib).

In appeal for the assessment year 1991-92 held

Kala Niketan v. UOI (2016) 293 CTR 178/148 DTR 121 (Bom.) (HC)

EskayK'n' IT (India) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2015) 229 Taxman 204 (Bom.)(HC)

period.

Emgeeyar Pictures (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 159 ITD 1/ 138 DTR 20/ 179 TTJ 383 (TM) (Chennai)(Trib.)

40.14

Sujeer Properties (AOP) v. ITO ( 2011) 131 ITD 377 (Mum.) (Trib).


VALUATIONOf

ASSETSBRANDS

BUSINESSGOODWILL

TECHNICAL KNOWHOWSeveral prominent valuations carried out by us

Please Contact:Rs. $ £ANMOL SEKHRI CONSULTANTS P. LTD.Bandra Arcade, Ground Floor,Nandi Galli, Opp. Bandra Railway Station,Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050.Tel: (022) 2640 7841 / 2651 2948 Fax – 2641 9865M: 9892213456 / 9892235678Web Site : www.valuationsekhri.comEmail : [email protected] [email protected]

AIFTPJ – 403


therefore passed in 2011 and 2016, seeking to

Advocate

amended in 2016.

name,

knowledge of the ownership of the property, or

Salient Features of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act as amended in 2016

AIFTPJ – 404


interest in the property and where the property

property that is made or held under a name

owner.

interested the real owner.

essentially means property without a name. The

owner is not the person in whose name it is.


AIFTPJ – 405


property.

another person; and

the property is not aware of, or, denies

person towards whom he stands

in the name of his spouse or in

appear as joint-owners in any


AIFTPJ – 406


to whom possession of property

who has granted possession thereof

property and non-return of the property from


AIFTPJ – 407


in power at the Centre.

transfer the property in the name of the

Commissioner.


AIFTPJ – 408


The IT department has identified more than

years.


AIFTPJ – 409


vide

`

property;

property.

property is situated.

information and guide him to the


AIFTPJ – 410


time of furnishing information in

in this regard.

Informant Code, the person shall

final in the matter of allotment of Informant Code under this

on fulfilment of the following

informant; and


AIFTPJ – 411


on fulfilment of the following

informant;

amount of interim reward of ` Ten

reward, the amount of interim

`

properties informed in a single

property.


— Swami Vivekananda

AIFTPJ – 412


Advocate

vide Income Tax Officer v. K. N. Guruswamy (34 ITR 601– Hon'ble Supreme Court). In the earlier Sales

determination of

assessmentassessment

Assessment in the GST Law

penalty of `

` 10,000 or the

AIFTPJ – 413


the determine the rate

from the date

final assessment order

period of from the date

registered person is entitled for refund as

of the return and inform him of the

thirty days

thirty daysfurther period


AIFTPJ – 414


.

a registered person fails to furnish the return

said person to the taking

an assessment order within a period of years

not paid relates. Thus for passing an order

furnishes a return within thirty days

withdrawn

grounds

and after allowing a time of fifteen daysperson to furnish his reply, if any, pass an assessment orderwithin a period of from the date

that this summary assessment relates to a situation

the goods.

, with the


AIFTPJ – 415


assessment order

grounds

supply of goods,

person

withdrawal of the summary assessment order

within thirty days

year from the date of the order made under

Valuation of Land, Building and Machines & Equipment for;

Fair Value Measurement as per Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS)

Realisable value under IBBI Regulations, 2016

Value as on 1st April, 2001 for Capital Gains Tax

Useful Life as per Companies Act, 2013

Impairment Studies

Expert Witness and Litigation Support Valuation

Use our supportable value opinion provided by a team of Govt. Registered Valuers and Chartered Engineers,

Best MULYANKAN Consultants Ltd.1st Floor, “ADITYA” Building,

Junction of N.S. Phadke Marg and Telli Galli, Opp. Flyover Apartment, Andheri (East),

Mumbai – 400 069. TELEFAX: 2684 1836, 2684 1839

E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]: www.mulyankan.com


AIFTPJ – 416


NUT CRACKERS Questions & Answers

CA. H. N. Motiwalla

What is the effect of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 in respect of right of daughter in HUF property?

denied to daughters, The amendment takes

property.

A is having four tank lorries. He submits his Income-tax Return under presumptive scheme u/s. 44AE. Whether he can pay amount up to rupees two lakh in each for his high speed diesel (HSD) bills?

“(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sections 28 to 43C, in case of an assessee, who owns not more than ten goods carriages at any time during the previous year and which is engaged in the business of plying, hiring or leasing such goods carriages, the income of such business chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession” shall be deemed to be aggregate of profits and gains from all the goods carriages owned by him in the previous year computed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the profits and gains from each goods carriage shall be an amount equal to seven thousand five hundred rupees for every month or part of a month during which the goods carriage is owned by the assessee in the previous year or an amount claimed to have been actually earned from the vehicle, whichever is higher ………..”

non obstante

[see Pushpak Auto Centre v. ITO 158 ITD 588 (Del.)]

AIFTPJ – 417


Nut Crackers

A has made full partition of HUF in March 2016. HUF submits ITR for the Assessment year 2017-18. The intimation u/s. 143(1) is received, but no partition u/s. 171 is recorded. What steps the assessee should take?

ITO v. N. K. Sarada Thampathy [187 ITR 696 (SC)].

Kalwa Devadattam v. UOI [49 ITR 165 (SC)],

partition.

assessment on the family without disposing

Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT [131 ITR 451] ,

Can availment of MAT credit be deferred. In other words, assessee wants to pay regular tax and does not wish to utilise available MAT credit for reducing the current tax liability. Assessee wishes to utilise available MAT credit in future years. Is there any bar in his doing so?

(3A) The amount of tax credit determined under sub-section (2) shall be carried forward and set-off in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) but such carry forward shall not be allowed beyond the fifteenth assessment year immediately succeeding the assessment year in which tax credit becomes allowable under sub-section (1A).

(4) Tax credit shall be allowed set-off in a year when tax becomes payable on the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act other than section 115JA or section 115JB as the case may be.

(5) Set-off in respect of brought forward tax credit shall be allowed for any assessment year to the extent of the difference between the tax on his total income and the tax which would have been payable under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 115JA or section 115JB, as the case may be for the assessment year.

AIFTPJ – 418


Nut Crackers

In V. D. Dhanwatey v. CIT [68 ITR 365 (SC)],

of lithography and printing and was

partnership deed the general management and

the remuneration paid to him. It, therefore, followed that remuneration was not earned

Kalu Babu Lal Chand [37 ITR 123(SC)] and Mathura Prasad v. CIT [60 ITR 428 (SC).]

was partner representing the family and under the partnership agreement, that he

for the same. The remuneration paid was held

V. D. Dhanwatey [68 ITR 365 (SC)]

Nagar Das v. CIT [66 ITR 203.]

remuneration was merely a form of profit sharing and was earned

the remuneration was earned due to

Note: Please send your queries relating to Direct, Indirect & International Taxation, Accounting & Auditing Standards and Company Law, FEMA etc., to AIFTP, having interest to the Members.


AIFTPJ – 419


NUT CRACKERS Questions & Answers

Advocate

Whether, receipt towards surrender of tenancy right by the individual is liable under GST?

The facts are that an individual had commercial

individual has no business activity and also does not hold registration under GST. The said building is under redevelopment and the builder has offered lump sum amount towards vacating the premises and surrender of premises right. This is normally referred to as receipt of money towards tenancy right.

Issue is whether any GST is attracted on the above receipt in the hands of individual?

AIFTPJ – 420


Nut Crackers

to any premises;

sense.

of CIT v. Gopal Purohit 228 CTR 582 (Bom.)

Court distinguished the profit from shares

to an assessee to maintain two separate

the end of the year, in all the years. The

res judicata is not

AIFTPJ – 421


supplier as a person supplying the goods or

per se.

of gold ornaments sells it to registered supplier,

GST.

Nut Crackers


AIFTPJ – 422


the GST law.

along with returns.

returns.

5. Querist seeks to know whether this

law and whether there are any issues

are related parties under the Explanation

vice-versa

vice-versa.

per se

related persons.

pays the entire amount while the other

the other. [Durham Aged Mineworkers’ Home Association v. CEC (1994) BVC 145].

Advocates

Quest : OpinionGST on sharing of expenses by holding company with subsidiary company

AIFTPJ – 423


applied.

rules.

16. The Supreme Court in K. Damodarasamy Naidu v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2000) 117 STC 1]

will not matter.

Quest : Opinion

AIFTPJ – 424

AIFTP Journal September 2018 67AIFTPJ – 425


on Saturday, 6th October, 2018 and Sunday, 7th October, 2018at Hotel Satkar Residency, Pokhran Road No. 1, Next to Cadbury, Opp. Singhania School,

Thane (West) – 400 606

PROGRAMME

Day 1 : 6th October, 2018 (9.00 a.m. to 05.30 p.m.)

9.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. Registration & Breakfast10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. Inaugural Session

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Judge, Bombay High Court

11.00 a.m. to 11.15 a.m. Tea Break

11.15 a.m. to 01.00 p.m. First Technical Session – Income Tax – Issues in Section 56(2) - Recent

Chairman : Shri S. K. Poddar, Advocate, RanchiSpeaker : CA. Pradip Kapasi, Mumbai

01.00 p.m. to 01.45 p.m. Lunch Break01.45 p.m. to 03.30 p.m.

than relating to Real Estate)Chairman : Shri Vikram Nankani, Sr. Advocate, MumbaiSpeaker : CA. S Venkataramani, Bengaluru

03.30 p.m. to 03.45 p.m. Tea Break03.45 p.m. 05.30 p.m.

with BooksChairman : CA. Ashok Chandak, NagpurSpeaker : CA. Rajat Talati, Mumbai

NEC Meeting to be held from 6.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. (same venue)

National Tax ConferenceOrganised by

ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF

TAX PRACTITIONERS (WZ)

Jointly with

TAX PRACTITIONERS’ ASSOCIATION,

THANE TAX PRACTITIONERS’

ASSOCIATION OF MAHARASHTRA,

MUMBAI

TAX FRIENDS MUMBAI

GSTPAM

AIFTPJ – 426


Day 2 : 7th October, 2018 (08.30 a.m. to 06.00 p.m.)

08.30 a.m. to 09.30 a.m. Registration & Breakfast09.30 a.m. to 11.15 a.m.

Estate TransactionsChairman : Dr. Ashok Saraf, Sr. Advocate, GuwahatiSpeaker : Shri Kuntal Parekh, Advocate, Ahmedabad

11.15 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. Tea Break11.30 a.m. to 01.15 p.m.

tax Act, 1961Chairman : Shri N. M. Ranka, Sr. Advocate, JaipurSpeaker : Shri V. P. Gupta, Advocate, New Delhi

01.15 p.m. to 02.00 p.m. Lunch Break02.00 p.m. to 03.30 p.m.

Chairman : Shri K. K. Ramani, Advocate, MumbaiSpeaker : CA. Ashwin Shah, Thane

03.30 p.m. to 03.45 p.m. Tea Break03.45 p.m. to 05.30 p.m. Panel Discussion – GST

Moderator : Shri D. K. Gandhi, Advocate, GhaziabadPanellists : Shri P. C. Joshi, Advocate, Mumbai; CA. Parind Mehta, MumbaiPanel Discussion – Income TaxModerator : Shri Vipul Joshi, Advocate, MumbaiPanellists : CA. Pinakin Desai, Mumbai; Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate, Mumbai

05.30 p.m. Vote of Thanks

Registration fee:

Members ` 4,500/- per head

Spouse ` 4,250/- per head

Non members ` 5,250/-

For registration please contact

TAX PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION, THANETJSB BANK, Panch Pakhadi, ThaneSavings AccountA/C NO. 008110100007709IFSC CODE NO. TJSB0000008

Double Occupancy ` 5,200/- + GST 18%Single Occupancy ` 4,250/- + GST 18%

Suite ` 11,200/- + GST 28%

National Tax Conference at Thane

AIFTPJ – 427


NEFT details are as under:

NAME OF BANK ACCOUNT: HOTEL SATKAR RESIDENCY

CORPORATE ADDRESS: Pokhran Road No.1, Next to Cadbury Co., Opp. J. K. Singhania High School, Thane (W).

BANK NAME: HDFC Bank Ltd.

BANK ADDRESS: Shop No. 1-6, Devdaya Park, Opp. Raymonds Ltd. Gate, Pokhran Rd. No.1, Vartak Nagar, Mumbai – 400 606

BANK BRANCH: Vartak Nagar, Thane

BANK A/C NO. 04882560000360

ACCOUNT TYPE: Current Account

NEFT / IFSC CODE. HDFC0000488

SWIFT CODE: HDFCINBB

MICR CODE 400240069

BRANCH CODE 0488

For any query or assistance relating to room booking please contact :

Hotel Satkar Residency+91 22 25985858

[email protected]

*For any further enquiries relating to NTC, please contact*[email protected]

Mr. Ganesh Purohit, National President, AIFTP, 9425154914 Mr. Pankaj Ghiya, Secretary General, AIFTP, 9829013626Mr. Deepak R. Shah, Chairman, AIFTP (WZ), 9820148536Mr. Salil Lodha, Hon. Secretary, AIFTP (WZ), 9820149302Mr. Pradip Kapadia, President, GSTPAM, 9821029082Mr. Sunil Joshi, Convenor, GSTPAM, 9821540031

National Tax Conference at Thane

AIFTPJ – 428

Mr. Vijay Kewalramani, Conference Chairman, 9820073165Mr. Bharat Sachdev, Conference Secretary, 9820232910Mr. C.L. Bhanushali, TPA, Thane, 9821296400Mr. Kamlesh Saboo, TPA, Thane, 9819195333Mr. Parag Chitnis, TPA, Thane, 9987032650Mr. Girish Rathi, TPA, Thane, 9867617989Mr. Hari Dudani, Hon. Secretary, Tax Friends, 8007777257

Conference Secretariate

M/s. V. N. Kewalramani & Associates 108/109, Paradise Tower, Gokhale Road, Naupada,

Thane – 400 602, Maharashtra Tel.: 022-25372532 • Mobile: 9820073165


Prayagraj Tax Conference 2018Organised by

ALL INDIA FEDERATION OF TAX PRACTITIONERS – NORTH ZONE

In Association With

THE INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABAD & THE U.P. TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES, MNNIT, ALLAHABAD

at

on

THEME : Role of Tax Professionals in Fiscal Laws

PROGRAMME

08.30 AM to 9.30 AM Registration

09.30 AM to 11.30 AM Inaugural Session

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Judge, Supreme Court of India

Guests of Honour : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran, Judge, Supreme Court of India

: Hon’ble The Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court

: Hon’ble Senior Judge of Allahabad High Court

MOC : Mrs Jamuna Shukla, FCA, & Mr Arvind Shukla, Advocate, Varanasi

11.45 AM to 01.45 PM 1st Technical Session

Interactive Session on :

a) Income-tax Act 1961

b) Taxation of Capital Gains in case of Securities & Real Estate Transactions

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Judge of Allahabad High Court

Chairman : Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate, Mumbai

Panellists : Mr Ashok Kumar Tripathi, CIT(Appeals), Allahabad

: Mr. Rahul Agrawal, Advocate, Allahabad

: Mr. Rajesh Mehta FCA, Chairman (Central Zone), FCA, Indore

: Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Advocate, Varanasi

: Mr Anand Godbole, Allahabad

: Mrs. Sakshi Khanna, FCA, Allahabad

(Questions & Answers by the panellists during discussion)

01.45 PM to 02.45 PM Lunch Break

AIFTPJ – 429


02.45 PM to 05.00 PM

Interactive Session on

ITC GST Laws.

b) Implications of GST in case of E-Commerce

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court

Chairman : Mr. M. L. Patodi, Senior Advocate, Kota

Panellists : Mr. Vikram Chawla, Advocate, Saharanpur

: Mr. Venkatramani, FCA, Bengaluru

: Mr. D. K. Gandhi, Advocate, Ghaziabad

: Ms. Anupama Agrawal, New Delhi


05.00 PM onwards High Tea

09.00 AM to 10.00 AM Breakfast

10.000 AM to 12.00 Noon

Interactive Session on

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Judge of Allahabad High Court.

Chairperson : Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Senior Advocate, Delhi

Panellists : The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

: Mrs. Rano Jain, FCA, New Delhi

: Mrs. Shilpi Satyapriya Satyam, Advocate, Delhi

: Mr. V. P. Gupta, Advocate, Delhi

; Mr. A. K. Srivastava, FCA, Delhi

: Mr. Siddharth Pathak, Advocate, Allahabad


12.00 Noon to 01.30 PM

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Judge of Allahabad High Court

Chairperson : Eminent Faculty

Panellists : Mrs. Sumitra Chowdhry, Advocate, Delhi

: Prof. Geetika, Chairperson, Women Grievance Cell, MNNIT, Allahabad.

: Mrs. Anjo Jain, Advocate, New Delhi.

: Mrs. Shilpi Mitchell, Educationist, Allahabad

: Mrs. Pooja Talwar, Advocate


Prayagraj Tax Conference at Allahabad

AIFTPJ – 430


01.30 PM to 02.30 PM Lunch Break

02.30 PM to 04.30 PM 5th Technical Session

GST

Chief Guest : Hon’ble Justice S D Singh* Judge of Allahabad High Court

Chairman : Dr. M. V. K. Moorthy Advocate, Hyderabad

Panellists : Mr. Siddheshwar Yellamali, FCA, Bengaluru

: Mr. Dharmendra Srivastava, FCA, Kanpur

: Mr. Rakesh Agrawal, Advocate, Ghaziabad

: Dr. Naveen Rattan, Advocate, Amritsar

Mr. Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Advocate, Allahabad


4.30 PM to 5.00 PM Valedictory Session

Delegate Registration Fees : ` 2,000/- up to 30-09-2018 ` 2,500/- from 01-10-2018 up to 31-10-2018 and ` 3,000/- from 01-11-2018

Bank Details :

Indian Overseas Bank, Civil Lines, Allahabad

Name of Account : PRAYAGRAJ TAX CONFERENCE – 2018

A/C No. : 035001000062798

IFSC : IOB0000350

For Registration Please Contact:

Note: The above is a tentative programme subject to change.

CONFERENCE COMMITTEEMr. Ganesh Purohit National President, AIFTP, Jabalpur

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Chairman, AIFTP (NZ), Allahabad, 9415216798Mr. Ajit Dhawan, Conference Chairman, Allahabad

Mr. Arvind Mishra, Convener, Secretary ITBA, Allahabad, 9839503498Mr. Arvind Gupta, Vice Chairman, President UPTBA, Azamgarh, 9415207624

Mr. Madhurendra Nath, Vice Chairman, President ITBA, AllahabadProf. Tanuj Nandan, MNNIT Allahabad

Prayagraj Tax Conference at Allahabad

AIFTPJ – 431

AIFTP Journal September 2018 74 AIFTPJ – 432

Documents

C O N T E N T Saiftponline.org › wp-content › uploads › journal › 2018 › ... · AIFTP Journal September 2018 3 C O N T E N T S Pg. 5 From the Editor-in-Chief — Dr. K