Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


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]

PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 / 261 Taxman 47 (Delhi) (HC) Editorail: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ( 2020) 268 Taxman 317 (SC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income–Disallowance cannot be made when there is no income exempt from tax. [R. 8D]

Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit v .ACIT ( 2019) 308 CTR 507/ 264 Taxman 77 (SC) Editorial: From the judgement, Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit v .ACIT ( 2016) 383 ITR 562 /287 CTR 649/ 137 DTR 383 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law and dismissing it is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure –High Court is directed to hear the appeal following the mandatory procedure. [ S.260A(2) ( C ), 260A(3) ]

Ritha Sabapathy (Smt) v Dy.CIT ( 2019) 416 ITR 191/308 CTR 417 / 263 Taxman 84/177 DTR 178( Mad) (HC)

S.254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Duties- Ex parte order- Even if the assessee could not appear , the Tribunal could have decided the appeal on merits- The Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal on miscellaneous application filed by the assessee- Court also directed to send the copy of the Judgement to the President of the Tribunal as well as Law Secretary in the Ministry of law and Justice so that the same may be brought to the notice of all the Members of the Tribunal . [S.260A, ITATR.1963, R. 24 ]

CIT v. Ram Kishan Dass. (2019) 263 Taxman 657/ 413 ITR 337/ 307 CTR 777 (SC)

Words and Phrases — “And” — “Or”.

CIT v. Ram Kishan Dass. (2019) 413 ITR 337 / 307 CTR 777/ 263 Taxman 657 (SC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes-Retrospective Operation- Presumption of retrospective application of amendments of Procedural nature.

PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2019) 413 ITR 447/ 308 CTR 305 / 263 Taxman 443/ 177 DTR 161 (SC)Editorial: Order in CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd ( 2017) 85 taxmann.com 13 ( Bom) (HC) is setaside

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Capital or revenue-Tribunal Recording Inconsistent findings–Matter remanded to Tribunal for decision afresh. [S. 37(1), 260A]

Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 413 ITR 370/ 179 DTR 209 / 310 CTR 648 (Mad.)(HC),Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v .UOI (2020) 269 Taxman 120 (Mad) (HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Reasons for reassessment need not be given in notice-Writ is held to be not maintainable–Respondent was directed to furnish the recoded reasons from the receipt of order copy–Petitioner can file objection if any against the recorded reasons with n four weeks from the date of receipt of the reasons. [S.147, Art. 226]