Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


ACIT v. Kishore Kumar (2018) 66 ITR 158 (Vishakha)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp Duty Valuation – Where the assessee explained the reasons for fetching a lesser rate on sale of immovable property as compared to the Stamp Duty Valuation, the AO should have remitted the matter to the DVO for determination of the FMV of the immovable property. [S. 45]

ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) ( Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible- Deduction at source-Word ‘payable’ occurring in section 40(a)(ia) not only covers cases where amount is yet to be paid but also those cases where amount has actually been paid.

ACIT v. Kasiviswanadham (A)(2018) 66 ITR525 (Vishakha)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source– Contractor – In absence of express or implicit contract between the assesse and the maistries, payments made to the labourers through maistries / group leaders did not attract deduction at source hence no disallowances can be made. [S. 194C]

ACIT v. Dish TV India Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 897/ 169 DTR 253 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Short deduction – Precedent -Deducted the tax applying the provision of S.194C @2% instead of 194J @ 10%- No disallowances can be made.
[ S.194C, 194J ]

ACIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 433 (Bang)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure- Provision for fall in the value of investment held as stock-in-trade by bank is allowable as a deduction.

ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) (Trib.)

S. 37 (1) : Business expenditure-Provision for standard asset being required only to meet the unexpected eventuality is purely contingent in nature and hence is not allowable as a deduction.

ACIT v. Guntur District Co-operative Bank Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 61 (SN) (Vishakha) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Actual payments made to Group Gratuity Scheme are allowable as deduction even though the same is not approved by the CIT. [S. 36(1)(v)]

ACIT v. Pasadensa Foods Ltd. (2018) 163 DTR 243 /192 TTJ 645 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – Where capital was borrowed for acquisition of fixed assets and only a part of assets were put to use, then interest was to be allowed only to the extent the assets were operational during the current year

ACIT v. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 49 (Ahd.)(Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Set-off of Unabsorbed depreciation – Any unabsorbed depreciation available on 01.04.2002 i.e AY 2002-03 would be carried forward as per amended provisions of 32(2) of the Act without any time limit. [ S.32(2)]

ACIT v. Grew Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 66 ITR 116 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 28(i) : Business income- Income from house property-Income from letting out of premises/developed space along with other amenities in industrial park/SEZ is to be charged under head profits and gains of business. [S. 22]