Year: 2018

Archive for 2018


CIT v. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (2018) 408 ITR 176 /258 Taxman 396/ 172 DTR 423/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 569(Mad) (HC)

S.32: Depreciation — Rate of depreciation —All equipment formed part of Life Saving Equipment —Denial of depreciation on computer is held to be not proper [ ITRules 1962, Appex. I, Part A Iii 3(Xia)(D).]

Mahaveer Yadav v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 19 (Raj) (HC)

S.28(i):Business income — Capital gains — Conversion of agricultural land into residential plots and sale of residential plots -Consideration over fair market value to be assessed as business income -No question of law .[ S.4, 45 , 260A ]

J. B. Memorial Manas Academy Management Society. v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 255/ 259 Taxman 537 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Exemption cannot be denied only on the ground that institution has earned surplus when the institution is solely for educational purposes .

LIC Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 408 ITR 287/ 254 Taxman 119 (Mad) (HC)

Interpretation – Binding precedent -Appellate Tribunal- Assessing Officer is bound by decision of Tribunal- Pendency of an appeal would not amount to an order of stay .[ S.254(1) ]

ACIT v. Vijay Television Private Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 642/ 304 CTR 149/ 169 DTR 17 (Mad) (HC)

Words and Phrases- Meanings of -“irregularity” and “illegality”.

CIT v. M. P. Purushothaman (2018) 407 ITR 689/ ( 2019) 175 DTR 221/ (2020) 314 CTR 733 (Mad) ( HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Cash credits- Reasonable cause in omitting rental income- Deletion of penalty is held to be justified .[ S.260A ]

Micro Inks Limited v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 681 (Guj) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Allowability of interest -Assessing officer taking plausible view after proper enquiry — Order is not erroneous and cannot be revised. [ S.57(iii)]

V. C. Nannapaneni. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 505 / 305 CTR 625/ 171 DTR 337(T&AP) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Question of Law — Interpretation of document is question of law —Amount received by assessee under non-compete agreement constitute capital receipt . [ S.4 ]

Jaya Chheda, Legal Heir of Late Hitesh S. Bhagat. v. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 553 (Bom) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties-Business income or capital gains- Investment in shares- The entire data of each transaction was before the Tribunal and nothing prevented it from looking into all the transactions and recording findings of fact-The Tribunal had failed to perform its duty and therefore, its order was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. [ S. 28( i), 45 ]

Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel. v. ITSC (2018) 405 ITR 270 (Guj) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission -Finding of failure by assessee to make true disclosure of undisclosed income — The limited jurisdiction of judicial review while examining the correctness of the order of the Settlement Commission is a well settled principle- Rejection of application is held to be justified. [ S.245C ]