Month: September 2018

Archive for September, 2018


Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. v. JCIT (Raj)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 40(a)(ii) : Amounts not deductible – Rates or tax – Education cess is not part of tax. Accordingly, the same is allowable as a deduction and disallowance cannot be made. CBDT Circular referred.

PCIT v. Rungta Mines Ltd 2018) 96 Taxmann.com 166 (Cal)(HC),www.itatonlin.org

S. 37(1):Business expenditure-Capital or revenue- payment of a one-time fee to continue the business of mining constitutes revenue expenditure.

CIT v. K.C.P Ltd ( 2018) 409 ITR 436 (AP)(HC),www.itatonlin.org

S. 35B :Export markets development allowance –Agent- Expenditure incurred in the promotion of the sale outside India – Not discharged the onus of establishing that the expenditure was wholly or exclusively incurred for the purposes mentioned in S.35-B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act- Not entitle to weighted deduction . [ S.35B(1)(b) (iv) ]

CIT v. K.C.P Ltd ( 2018) 409 ITR 436(AP)(HC),www.itatonlin.org

S. 35B :Export markets development allowance –Agent- Expenditure incurred in the promotion of the sale outside India – Not discharged the onus of establishing that the expenditure was wholly or exclusively incurred for the purposes mentioned in S.35-B(1)(b)(iv) of the Act- Not entitle to weighted deduction . [ S.35B(1)(b) (iv) ]

Ramilaben D. Jain v. ACIT(2018) 407 ITR 589 / 258 Taxman 97 (Bom)(HC),www.itatonlne.org

S.28(1):Business income- Capital gains- sale of shares- Short period of holding shows that intention of assessee is to earn profit at earliest possible occasion-Assessee is moving as per stock market trend and selling shares at first available opportunity. This type of activity of sale and purchase is rightly termed, not as investment, but as trading [ S.45 ]

Sachin R. Tendulkar v. DCIT (2018) 172 ITD 266/ 169 DTR 169/ 195 TTJ 241 / 66 ITR 74 (SN) ( Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value -vacancy allowance-The words ‘property is let’ does not mean ‘property actually let out’. If property is held with an intention to let out in the relevant year coupled with efforts made for letting it out, it could be said that such a property is a let out property and the same would fall within the purview of S. 23 (1)(c) and be eligible for vacancy allowance. A reasonable approach should be taken on the assesse’s attempts to let out and infallible proof should not be demanded [ S.22, 23(1) (c )]

PCIT v. Ballapur Industries Ltd.(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -The expression “does not form part of the total income” in S. 14A envisages that there should be an actual receipt of the income, which is not includible in the total income- If no exempt income is received or receivable during the relevant previous year, no disallowance can be made [ R.8D ]

Khandelwal Steel & Tube Traders. v. ITO (2018) 256 Taxman 305/ 167 DTR 249 / 304 CTR 500(Mad) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Survey-Agreed addition- Revised return- Burden is on the assessee to show that there was an omission or wrong statement in original return must be due to bona fide inadvertence or bona fide mistake on part of assessee and even if assessee agreed to addition with a condition that penalty could not be imposed, department is not precluded from initiating penalty proceedings- levy of penalty is held to be valid [ S.69B ]

PCIT v. H.Nagaraja (2018) 256 Taxman 335/ 169 DTR 198 / 305 CTR 547(Karn)( HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Merger –When partial disallowance made by the AO is up held by the CIT(A) ,revision by the CIT to once again examine very same issue to disallow entire expenditure is not valid, as the issue is merged with the order of CIT(A) . [ S.37(1) ]

PCIT v. Lalitaben Govindbhai Patel. (2018) 256 Taxman 390 (Guj)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revene is dismissed , PCIT v. Lalitaben Govindbhai Patel ( 2019) 261 Taxman 453 (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- When assessee never received anything beyond the amount which was originally agreed, question of charging capital gain from assessee on a sum larger than the said amount would not arise – Tribunal was justified in setting aside revisional order passed by commissioner .[ S.45 , 48 ]