Month: May 2020

Archive for May, 2020


Softzone Tech Park Ltd. v. CBDT (2020) 421 ITR 398 / 185 DTR 92 / 312 CTR 289 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Writ of mandamus or otherwise to respondent to notify the Industrial Park of the petitioner under Rule 18C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. [S. 80IB (10), Art. 226]

PCIT v. Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 213/ 317 CTR 599 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Separate and independent unit-Common excise registration-Common electricity-Common water connection-Not an extension of existing units-Different products manufactured–Written down value of machinery transferred was less than 20 % of the value. [S. 80IB]

PCIT v. Arvind N. Nopany (2020) 185 DTR 369 / 313 CTR 87 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 56 : Income from other sources–Relative–Gift from brother in law is relative-Cash credits–No addition can be made as cash credits–Genuineness is established. [S. 56(2)(vii), 68, 132]

ACIT v. Alfran Construction Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 186 DTR 53/ 313 CTR 365 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Contractors-Provisions are not applicable where neither the assessee nor the party engaged by assessee was a contractor-No disallowances can be made. [S. 194(c)]

PCIT v. Merck Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 401 / 312 CTR 242/ 275 Taxman 181 / ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 596 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Sales promotion expenses–Held to be allowable as business expenditure.

PCIT v. Merck Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 401 / 312 CTR 242 / 275 Taxman 181 / ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 596(Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue–Buy back of shares-Held to be revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Merck Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 401 / 312 CTR 242/ 275 Taxman 181/ ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue–Buy back of shares-Held to be revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Merck Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 401 / 312 CTR 242/ 275 Taxman 181/ ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 596 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Technical consultancy fees is held to be allowable business expenditure.

CIT v. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd (2020) 422 ITR 116 /186 DTR 193 / 313 CTR 69/ 270 Taxman 162 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Amortization of investment ‘held to be maturity’–Tribunal is justified in allowing the claim. [S. 145]

CIT v. Syndicate Bank (2020) 186 DTR 200 / 313 CTR 576 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income–No expenditure incurred – Disallowances cannot be made–Rule 8D cannot be made applicable assessment year prior to AY. 2008-09. [R. 8D]