Month: September 2018

Archive for September, 2018


N. Annamalai v. PCIT (2018) 257 Taxman 192 (Mad)( HC)

S. 10(10C) :Public sector companies – Voluntary retirement scheme -ICICI Bank- Early Retirement Option Scheme- Entitled to exemption even though the assessee had filed revised return under S. 139(5), for relevant year beyond prescribed time period. [ S.139(5) ]

PCIT v. Road Infrastructure Development Corporation of Rajasthan Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 208 (Raj) ( HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue ,PCIT v. Road Infrastructure Development Corporation of Rajasthan Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 186 (SC)

S. 4:Income chargeable to tax-Capital or revenue-Income from other sources-Interest on funds deposited with banks – Prior to commencement of commercial operations will be in nature of capital receipt and will be required to be set off against pre-operative expenditure capitalized under head capital work-in-progress -Cannot be taxed as income from other sources. [ S.5, 56,145 ]

PCIT v. P.S. Raghupathy (2018) 257 Taxman 225 (Mad)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. P.S. Raghupathy ( 2019) 261 Taxman 248 (SC)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land – Beyond 8 Kms from nearest Municipality -Nursery- Land record showing the land as agricultural land – Sale consideration is exempt from tax .[ S.45 ]

PCIT v. Heenaben Bhadresh Mehta. (2018) 409 ITR 196/ 257 Taxman 219 (Guj)(HC)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land- Adventure in the nature of land – Land was sold after a period of 16 months-Land shown as agricultural land in revenue records- Fact that said land had been sold to an industrial unit and had potential to be used for industrial purpose, could not be a determinative factor to treat profit earned by assessee on sale of agriculture land as business income- The intention of the purchaser cannot be the determinative factor to treat the profit earned by the assessee on sale of agriculture land as business income. .[ S.28(i), 45 ]

Priyanka Chopra (Ms). v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 437/ 170 DTR 342/ 195 TTJ 900 (Mum) (Trib.)/Madhu Ashok Chopra v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 437/ 170 DTR 342/195 TTJ 900 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Cash payments – Amount offered as undisclosed income in return of mother-Deletion of addition is held to be justified .

Priyanka Chopra (Ms). v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 437/ 170 DTR 342/195 TTJ 900 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.69A: Un explained money- Performance charges in weddings- No evidence whatsoever or any incriminating documents which indicated attendance of marriage functions by assessee in absence of any corroborative material addition could not be made solely on basis of statement obtained from secretary of assessee .

Priyanka Chopra (Ms). v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 437/ 170 DTR 342/195 TTJ 900 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Loose papers- Proposal to buy flat- Deal was cancelled – Addition is held to be not justified .

Delmas S.A.S. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 373 /(2019) 197 TTJ 1 (UR) / 67 ITR 44 (SN)(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 44B : Shipping business – Non-residents – Inland Haulage Charges ( IHC)- Income derived from operation of ship in international traffic- Not taxable in India – DTAA- India -France [ Art.9 ]

Shree Kadodara Vibhag Nagrik Bachat Ane Dhiran Karnari Sahkari Mandli Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 431 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iv) : Contribution to recognized provident fund – Contribution to provident fund which is constituted under Gujarat Co Operative Societies Act , 1961 is eligible deduction . [ S.2(38) 40A(9) , Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 , S.71, 72 ]

ACIT v. River View Hotels. (2018) 171 ITD 404 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 35AD: Deduction in respect of expenditure on specified business-Hotel business- Granted certification for categorization of its hotel as three star hotel -Entire capital expenditure is allowable as deduction .