Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


CIT v. Jameela, J. S. Cashew Exporters. (2018) 401 ITR 391/ 165 DTR 287 (Ker) (HC)

S.80HHC: Export — Generation of profit in export business is irrelevant –Formula to be applied – Income from high sea sales to be included – Loss incurred in export business is eligible deduction [ S.80HHC (3) (c ) ]

CIT v. Banaras House Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 88 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 80HHC : Export business – Ninety per cent. of only net interest is to be Included in profits of business As Computed under head “Profits and gains of business.

Anand Incubation Centre v. CIT (E) (2018) 168 ITD 202 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation – Once registration was granted refusal of exemption for donation was held to be not justified [ S. 12AA, 80G(5) (vi) ]

Siddhesh Capital Market Services P. Ltd. v. (2018) 61 ITR 400 //53 CCH 427(Mum) (Trib)

S. 73 : Losses in speculation business -Gross total income- Income from other sources- Assessee falling within exception carved out in section.

Sheela Ahuja Alias Lata Ahuja (Smt.) v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 56 (All) (HC)

S. 68:Cash credits — Gift – Credit worthiness of the donor was not established hence addition was held to be justified .

CIT v. Ramshree Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 61 (All) (HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Loss of Current year and carried forward loss off of earlier year from non-speculative business can be set off against profit of speculative business of current year. [ S. 72(1 ) ]

ITO v. Ravindra Pratap Thareja. (2018] 61 ITR 415 (Jabalpur) (Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Service tax paid through banking challans , addition was held to be not justified .

ITO v. Ravindra Pratap Thareja. (2018] 61 ITR 415 (Jabalpur) (Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -CIT(A) applying 40% net profit on account of alleged concealed receipts was set a side to the AO to decide accordance with law .

Prabhat Gupta v. ITO (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S.69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus purchases- Non service of notice cannot be the basis to confirm the addition as bogus purchases considering other evidences purchases cannot be assessed as alleged bogus purchases .

Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. v. DCIT ( Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S.69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus purchases- Supplier admitted the supply of goods and genuineness of transaction, therefore purchases cannot be treated as bogus purchases addition of Rs 12.5% of the purchases was deleted. [S. 133(6)]