Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Vinay Bhasin v. ACIT (2020) 83 ITR 78 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Assessing Officer should examine correctness of claim that no expenses were incurred after making reference to Account-Without recording the dissatisfaction no disallowance can be made. [S. 10(34), R.8D ]

Dy. CIT (LTU) v. EXL Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 83 ITR 11 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-No satisfaction recorded- Disallowance not sustainable. [R. 8D(2)(ii)]

Ameya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 83 ITR 46 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Only investments yielding exempt income during year to be considered for computing average value of investments. [R. 8D]

Delhi Agroha Vikas Trust v. CIT (E) (2020)83 ITR 26 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-rust or institution-Delay of 158 days in filing the appeal was condoned-Documents which was not produced before the CIT(E) was produced before the Appellate Tribunal-Matter remanded. [S. 12AA, 80G, 253, 254(1)]

Dy. CIT (LTU) v. EXL Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2020)83 ITR 11 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 10B : Export oriented undertakings-Sale of scrap-Entitled to deduction.

Dy. CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2020) 83 ITR 1 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Sales tax subsidy-For enabling to expand or modernize its existing unit-A capital receipt not taxable.

Dhiraj Manoharro Chore v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2020 Bom 65 (FB)

Interpretation of taxing statutes –Precedent – Special leave Petition dismissed in limine- Doctrine of merger is not applicable . [ Constitution ion of India , Art , 141, Maharashtra Employees of private Schools ( Conditions of Service ) Regulation Act , S. 4(1) 16(2) (a) ]

Arvind Kumar Arora v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271B :Penalty- Failure to get accounts audited -Reasonable cause – May – Levy of penalty is held go be not justified .

Piramal Healthcare Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 47 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of expenses on estimate basis – Capital or revenue –Debatable issue – Levy of penalty is not justified – Disallowance was deleted -Levy of penalty is not justified . [ S.14A ]

Arvind Kumar Arora v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No specific charge recorded – addition on estimate basis – Appeal not filed against quantum addition – Levy of penalty is not justified . [ S.274 ]