Year: 2020

Archive for 2020


Goyal & Co (Const.) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 280 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(va) : Any sum received from employees–Failure to deposit employees contribution on account of PF and ESI with concerned department on or before due date prescribed under relevant statutes-Not entitle to deduction.

Bodal Chemicals Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 180 ITD 313 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Good will-Amalgamation-Second year of amalgamation. Claim for depreciation had been allowed in first year of amalgamation, following principle of consistency, assessee’s claim was to be allowed in assessment year in question as well. [S. 43(1), Ex. 7]

Emmsons International Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 180 ITD 292 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Foreign currency loss on foreign exchange forward contracts–Allowable as business loss.

Goyal & Co (Const.) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 280 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Recording satisfaction-Suo-moto disallowance of certain expenditure–Not justified in recomputing disallowance by the AO-Interest-Own funds were more than investment made to earn exempted dividend income, there could be no disallowance of interest expenses-Only such investments are to be taken into account which yield tax exempt income-Disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D cannot be resorted while determining the expenses as mentioned under clause (f) to Explanation 1 to section 115JB. [S. 115JB, R. 8D]

Procter & Gamble Home Products (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 180 ITD 194 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty – Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing – Unless and until a specific defect is pointed out in documents submitted, penalty cannot be levied. [S.92D(3), R.10D(i)]

Vedanta Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 180 ITD 8 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Provision for expenditure – Contingent-provision was certified by auditors as well as approved by shareholders of company-Revision to disallow the provision as contingent id held to be not valid. [S. 37(1), 145]

Rajan Gumba Telang v. PCIT (2020) 180 ITD 184/ 187 DTR 385/ 204 TTJ 479 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence– Revision is held to be valid as the conditions of S. 54(2) had been violated as the assessee had not invested the capital gain in purchasing a new residential house before the due date of filing of return under S. 139(1) of the Act-Judgement of jurisdictional High Court is followed. [S.45, 54, 139(1), 139(4), 139(5)]

Minal Nayan Shah (Smt.) v. PCIT (2020) 180 ITD 149 (Ahd.)(Trib.) Editorial : Affirmed in PCIT v. Minal Nayan Shah (2020) 428 ITR 23 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Investment in residential house-Position prior to 1-4-2015: Multiple residential units are included within sphere of S. 54F of the Act-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

ITO v. Sakun Aggarwal. (2020) 180 ITD 68/ 187 DTR 65/ 204 TTJ 129 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Review of order is not permissible-Rectification application of the revenue is dismissed.[S.40A(3)]

NIIT Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 141 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Powers–CIT (A) cannot dismiss appeal against penalty merely stating that in quantum proceedings additions has been confirmed; in penalty appeal, he has to mention point for determination again and reasons for levy-Matter remanded. [S.271(1)(c)].