Month: May 2019

Archive for May, 2019


DCIT v. Shree Surat Jilla Leuva Patidar Samaj Trust. (2019) 176 ITD 69 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes–Application of income more than its gross total income-Accumulation at rate of 15 per cent is not required-voluntary donations towards corpus fund would be capital receipts hence not includible in its income. [S.11(1)(a), 12]

Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education. v. ITO (2019) 176 ITD 47 / 200 TTJ 810/ 182 DTR 89(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 10(46) : Body or authority-Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education falls under definition of ‘State’ as per Article 12 of Constitution and its income is eligible for exemption. [Art. 12, 289]

Baldev Singh v. ITO (2019) 176 ITD 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 10(37) : Capital gains-Agricultural land-Acquired by Government-Enhanced compensation including interest received would be eligible for exemption. [S. 45, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.28]

DCIT v. Rishabh Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (2019) 176 ITD 150 (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax–Capital or revenue -Compensation received as a termination of business activity is held to be capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

PCIT v. Aarham Softronics (2019) 412 ITR 632 / 261 Taxman 529 / 175 DTR 105 / 307 CTR 233 (SC ),www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Intention of legislature to be seen – Industrial undertaking- Initial assessment year. [ S.80IC ]

Lalit Agrawal v. ICAI (2019) 261 Taxman 459 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 22 : Professional and other misconduct–ICAI has jurisdiction to entertain complaint against chartered Accountant for sexual harassment. [S. 21]

Guruswami Ganga Naikar v. Vaishali Mohan Kshirsagar (2019) 261 Taxman 504 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 4 : Prohibition of the right to recover property held benami-Fiduciary capacity – Purchase of property in the name of trustworthy employee–Trail Court rejected the suit to recover the property on the ground that suit was barred–Matter restored back to Trial Court decide on merits. [Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order VII Rule 11(d)]

Ekant Baruta v. Rakesh Baruta (2019) 261 Taxman 565 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(9) : Benami transaction–Person making contribution for purchase of property are not owners of property but property in law is of persons in whose name title with respect thereto has been recorded. [S. 4]

Anis Ur Rehman v. Mohd. Tahir (2019) 261 Taxman 488 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(9) : Benami transaction- Defining expressions fiduciary capacity and trustee, it is not as if any vested right existing under earlier provisions of section 4(3) is taken away. [S. 4(3)]

CIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2019)103 taxmann.com. 81 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT (E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2019) 261 Taxman 552 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Quantum deleted–SLP is pending–Deletion of penalty is held to be valid. [S.11, 12AA]