Year: 2019

Archive for 2019


Mathur Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 260 Taxman 9/ 173 DTR 74/ 307 CTR 613/ 413 ITR 353 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Trading loss-Purchase and sales through commission agent-Loss held to be non -genuine -Disallowance is held to be justified–CIT(A) can consider the record relating to past assessment, while deciding the appeal. [S. 250, 260A]

DCIT v. D.R. Ranka Charitable Trust (2019) 260 Taxman 139 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution-Not carrying on any charitable activity during the relevant period cannot be the ground to cancel registration. [S. 12A]

PCIT v. Kayan Jamshid Pandole (Smt.) (2019) 260 Taxman 32 / 306 CTR 597/ 174 DTR 141(Bom.)(HC)

S. 10(34) : Dividend–Domestic companies-Tax on distribution of profits–Exemption cannot be denied to receiver of dividend, though the payer company had not paid tax on dividend distribution under section 115-O of the Act. [S. (22)(d), 115-O]

CIT v. Sri Balaji Society ( 2019) 101 Taxman.com 52/ 260 Taxman 246 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions – Exemption cannot be denied unless the revenue proves that amount paid to persons referred in sub -section (3) of section 13 is in excess of what may be reasonably paid for services rendered . [ S.11, 12AA]

PCIT v. Triforce Infrastructure ( India ) Pvt.Ltd ( Bom) ( HC) (UR) Editorial: DCIT v Triforce Infrastructure ( India ) Pvt.Ltd (SMC) ( Mum) (Trib)( ITA No .1890 /Mum/ 2014 dt 12-06-2015) is affirmed .

S.28(i): Business loss – Main object of the company – Infrastructure- Amended clause to carry on business of shares futures and options- Speculation- Futures and options- Amendment in object clause to carry on business in futures and options- Loss is allowable as business loss [ S. 43(5,73 ]

PCIT v. Rahul J. Jain ( Bom) (HC) (UR) Editorial: Order in ACIT v Rahul J. Jain (Mum) (Trib) ( ITA NO 5986 /M/ 2013 dt 28 -9-2015) is affirmed

S.144: Best judgement assessment- Books destroyed due to flood- Expenditure cannot be disallowed arbitrarily – Best judgement should not be made as a best punishment assessment .[ S.37 (1)

PCIT v. Parth Enterprises ( Bom) (HC) (UR) Editorial. Order in ITO v. Parth Enterprises ( Mum) (Trib) ( ITA No 976/M. 2016 dt. 10-06-2015 is affirmed .

S.68: Cash credits – Loans – Confirmation, balance sheet, bank account produced -AO had made no effort to verify the details filed by the assessee- Addition is held to be not justified .

Rajiv Jain. v. ITO (2019) 410 ITR 179 / 308 CTR 393TR 27/ 177 D(Delhi) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Duties-Failure consider the pleas raised by the assessee–Matter remanded. [S. 68]

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 410 ITR 205 (Pat.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed; Alkem Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 4 (St.) / (2019) 260 Taxman 101 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment- Scientific research expenditure- Absence of concluded facts – Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

S. Dhanapal (Smaller (HUF) (Specified) v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 230 (Mad.) (HC) S.Dhanpal (Bigger HUF) (Specified) v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 230 (Mad.) (HC) S. Dhanpal (Individual) v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 230 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Transport business—Estimation of income- Tribunal should have adopted same method in case of assessee’s son-Income from shares- Assessable in the hands of individual-Question of fact -Estimation of income–Could not be telescoped. [S. 5, 145]