Month: June 2019

Archive for June, 2019


Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 52 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Non speaking order-Garnishe notices to Banks was quashed and attachment of Bank account was lifted. [S. 226(3)]

CIT v. Poonjar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 67 (FB) (Ker.) (HC)/Mavilayi Service Co -Operative Bank Ltd v. CIT ( 2019) 414 ITR 67/ 309 CTR 121 ( FB) (Ker) (HC) PCIT v. Vazhappally Service Co -Operative Bank Ltd ( 2019) 309 CTR 121 ( FB) (Ker) (HC) Editorial: ITO v. Ettumanoor Service Co- Operative Bank Ltd.( 20160 52 ITR 132 ( SN) ( Cochin) (Trib) ITO v. Sahyadri Cohin- Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd ( 2017) 60 ITR 135 (Cochin) ( Trib) is reversed .Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee Mavilayi Service Co -Operative Bank Ltd v. CIT ( 2019) 418 ITR 12 (St) (SC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies–Co–Operative Bank-Assessee must substantiate that its main object of incorporation continues to be fulfilled In relevant assessment year-Benefit is not allowable solely on basis of certificate of registration-Assessee is not entitled to deduction if it ceases to be of specified class of society in any year even if it was eligible for initial years. [S. 80P(4)]

PCIT v. Kores India Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 47/ (2020) 274 Taxman 337 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Allotment of more than one unit to members of same family-Allottees Later removing partitions and combining two flats into one-No breach of condition that each unit should not be of more than 1000 Sq. Ft. — Entitled to deduction.

V. R. Enterprises v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 69 : Income form undisclosed-Bogus purchases-The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases-The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases. [S. 251]

R. P. Sarathy v. JCIT (2019) 414 ITR 161/ 263 taxman 149/ 177 DTR 33 /308 CTR 247(Mad.) (HC) CIT v. Minor M. Pranuthi (2019) 414 ITR 161/177 DTR 33 / 308 CTR 247(Mad.)(HC)

S. 64 : Clubbing of income-Minor child-Guardian of minor is representative assesse-Income of minor assessable in hands of guardian. [S. 2(7), 2(31), 160(1)(ii), 148]

Radhika Roy v. DCIT( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329(Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Dr.Prannoy Roy v. DCIT ( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 56 : Income from other Sources-Purchase of shares at Rs. 4 per shares when the market price was Rs. 140 per share-Failure to explain by credible evidence or any reason or no motive for tax evasion-Difference is held to be taxable as income .[S.56(2) (vii) (c)]

Rajiv Dass. v. CIT (OSD) (2019) 414 ITR 37/ 103 taxmann.com 192 / 264 Taxman 40 (Mag.) /307 CTR 429 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-No agricultural activities in preceding two years of transfer –Denial of exemption is held to be valid. [S. 45]

CIT v. Viswams. (2019) 414 ITR 148/ 179 DTR 25/ 263 Taxman 497 / 310 CTR 228 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. RM K. Viswanatha Pillai and sons (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. Aremaky (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.) (HC) CIT v. Kjah Enterprises P. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. K. Sivakuar (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. K.V. Nellaiyappan (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business Expenditure—Capital or revenue—Repair- Lease premises-Expenditure on construction and renovation of premises taken on Lease—Held to be capital expenditure. [S. 32 (IA)]

PCIT v. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible asset-Non–compete fee-The expression “or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights – Eligible for depreciation. [S. 32(i(ii)]

Time Media & Entertainment LLP v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Future and options loss-Client code modification-Repetitive client code modifications-Client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulation– Loss is held to be bogus –Not allowable as business loss- Reassessment is also upheld. [S. 133(6), 147, 148]