Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Olympia Industries Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 181 DTR 253/ (2020) 312 CTR 248 / / 424 ITR 202 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 72 : Loss-Carry forward and set off-scheme sanctioned by BIFR-Objection by Revenueto grant tax concession- Writ is held to be not maintainable . . [S. 72A, Sick industrial companies (Special provisions) Act, 1985, S. 18, 19, Art,226 ]

CIT v. Anoop Jain (2019) 182 DTR 291/311 CTR 58 /( 2020) 268 Taxman 427 / 424 ITR 115 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 69A : Income from undisclosed sources–No evidence to show that cheques stated to have been issued by the assessee-Deletion of addition is held to be justified.

N. R. Gangavathi (HUF), Basavaraj Kamatgi (HUF) v. ITO (2019) 419 ITR 469/ 311 CTR 625/ 184 DTR 375 (Karn.)(HC) Basavaraj Kamatgi (HUF) v. ITO (2019) 419 ITR 469 /311 CTR 625/ 184 DTR 375(Karn.) (HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investment-Income from undisclosed sources- Jewellery converted to bullion and sold–Sale proceeds through bank –Addition cannot be made as income from undisclosed sources. [Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997]

Purshottam Khatri v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 475 / 267 Taxman 503/ ( 2020) 312 CTR 323/ 185 DTR 177 (SC) Editorial : Decision in CIT v Purshottam Khatri (2006) 203 CTR 1/(2007) 290 ITR 260 (MP) (HC ) is reversed.

S. 69 : Un explained investment-Income from undisclosed sources- Non-Resident-Deposit in NRI Accounts–Deletion of addition by the Tribunal based on the evidences–Reversal of the order of Tribunal by the High Court is held to be not valid–Oder of the Tribunal is affirmed. [S.158BB, 260A, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, S.13]

Siddharth Export v. ACIT (2019) 183 DTR 361 / 311 CTR 663 / (2020) 268 Taxman 121 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bank statement or identity of creditor is not sufficient to prove the creditworthiness of creditor-Confirmation and income tax return is not produced-Addition is held to be justified.

PCIT v. Skylark Build (2019) 180 DTR 266 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Advance received-Produced bank statements and other details produced–Discharged the burden-Deletion of addition as cash credits is held to be justified.

PCIT v. Wadhawan Designs (2019) 184 DTR 299/(2020) 313 CTR 173 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Genuineness of purchases could not be established – Addition as cash credit is held to be justified.

Hitesh Mansukhlal Bagdai v. ACIT (2019)419 ITR 276 (Guj) (HC)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes–Sale of new asset of agricultural land within lock in period of three years– Withdrawal of exemption is held to be valid–Capital gains is chargeable to tax in the year in which transfer of asset is effected. [S. 45]

Venkata Dilip Kumar (HUF) v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 298/ (2020) 312 CTR 26/ 185 DTR 45/ 268 Taxman 111 (Mad.)(HC) .Editorial : Affirmed by division bench , CIT v. Venkata Dilip Kumar (2021)437 ITR 137 (Mad) (HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence- Additional cost of construction incurred within stipulated time though not deposited in capital gains account—Entitled to deduction. [S. 45, 54F, 264, Art.226]

P. Madhusudhan v. ACIT (2019)419 ITR 194/(2020) 189 DTR 163 (Mad)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains–Transfer of land to developer-No Objection Certificate obtained in June 1994-Built-up area handed over in financial year relevant to AY. 2001-02-Transfer took place when agreement for development of land was approved-Cost of construction referred in the agreement is held to be reasonable-Developer providing rent free accommodation is not assessable as capital gains-Sale of land and residential house to developer-Construction of residential house by developer-Entitled to exemption. [S. 2(47)(v), 54, 54F, 269UL, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 53A]