Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Vattiyoorkavu Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 270 Taxman 274 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Dismissal of appeal as defective and also stay application-Matter remitted to Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration and decision afresh on merits. [S. 271B, Art. 226]

Suresh Anuradha v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 124 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of Appeal before CIT (A)-Directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs and stay was granted till disposal of appeal. [S. 220(6), 246A]

Vinodbhai Jivrajbhai Radbiya v. ITO (2020) 270 Taxman 304 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Any hypothesis or contingency that may emerge in future-Protective addition-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Sheetal Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 270 Taxman 316 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Housing project-Completion certificate issued within four years from date of obtaining permission-Re assessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 80IB(10), 148 Art. 226]

Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Industrial building-Failure to produce confirmation-Expenses in relation to cost of construction of gala is held to be not allowable as deduction. [S. 45, 260A]

Deepa S. Pai (Smt.) v. Dy.CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 148 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 45(2) : Capital gains-Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade-Shares as investment-Valued the stock at lower of cost-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 45]

Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Business income-Dealing in land-Industrial building-Outright purchase and sale-Assessable as short term capital gains and not as business income-Question of fact. [S. 28(i), 260A]

PCIT v. Frontiner Land Development P. Ltd. (2020) 270 Taxman 63 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Real estate business-Forfeiture of advance-Allowable as business expenditure. [S. 28(i), 45]

Tulsiram v. Asst. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2020) 270 Taxman 309 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 –

S. 24: Notice and attachment of property – Provisions of Act providing for confiscation of properties found to be ‘Benami’ could be applied in respect of transactions carried out prior to 1-11-2016, i.e. date on which amended provision of law by virtue of Amendment Act, 2016 came into force.

Vinay Khanna v. Krishna Kumari Khanna (2020) 270 Taxman 34 (Delhi)(HC)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 –

S. 2(9): Benami transactions – Where son sought to obtain a declaration of being real and/or benami owner of property on ground that he had given money to his father and mother to purchase property which they got registered in their name but actually property belonged to him, however, no particulars of father and mother standing in any fiduciary capacity to son were disclosed, son would not be entitled to obtain a declaration of being real and/or benami owner of property