Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Olive Bar & Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 72 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Business commenced-Expansion of existing business-Preoperative expenses such as salaries and wages, PF and ESI contribution, travelling expenses, and like other general administrative expenses etc is held to be allowable. [S. 35D(1)(ii)]

Olive Bar & Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 72 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-ROC fees paid for increase in authorised capital for issuance of bonus shares was revenue expenditure-Matter remanded for verification.

Olive Bar & Kitchen (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 72 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-suo moto disallowance–Further disallowances made by the AO is held to be not justified. [R. 8D(2)(iii)]

India HIV / AIDS Alliance v. CIT(E) (2019) 175 ITD 1 / 177 DTR 400/ 200 TTJ 112(Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration–Trust or institution- Grants and charging management fees-Medical relief for patients and creating awareness about HIV and AIDS for purpose of its eradication are charitable activities-Entitle to registration. [S. 2(15)]

Global Academy of Emergency Medicine v. CIT (2018) 196 TTJ 273 / 171 DTR 73/ (2019) 175 ITD 96 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration–Trust or institution- Registration cannot be refused on the ground that all initial trustees had taken citizenship of foreign country–Order of CIT(E) rejection of registration and application u/s 80G is set aside. [S. 80G , FEMA, 1999, S.6(5) Indian Trust Act 1882 , S. 10, 60, 73]

ACIT v. R. Easwaran HUF (2018) 68 ITR 89 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment-Bad debt-Mere claim of bad debts not written off in books of accounts does not call for levy of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. [S.36(1)(vii)]

ACIT v. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (2018) 67 ITR 152 (Patna)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment – Specific charge – Notice did not categorically specify whether penalty was invoked for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.

ACIT v. Shailesh Gopal Mhaske (2017) 192 TTJ 559 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007– Penalty–Source of investment is explained and taxes not paid -Levy of penalty is held to be justified.[S. 132(4)]

Neo sack Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 67 ITR 389 (Indore)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Delay-Failure by assessee to appear before court despite several notices-Appeal liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. [Limitation Act, 1963, S.3]

ACIT v. Shri SDV International Logistics Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 35 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 194I : Deduction of tax at source—Rent-Internet connectivity charges and specialized line rental — Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S.9(1)(vi), 201(1), 201(1A)]