Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Shankar Sales Promotion (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 400/ 178 DTR 1 / 308 CTR 640(Cal.)(HC)

S. 73 : Losses in speculation business–Explanation-Whether trading in shares is the principal business of the assessee is a mixed question of facts and law-Matter remanded. [S. 71, 72, 254(1)]

CIT v. Harrisons Malayalam Financial Services Ltd. (2019) 308 CTR 280 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 73 : Losses in speculation business–Explanation–business of purchase and sale of shares–Held, loss speculative in nature and cannot be set off against income from other source–Held, main income being from other source need not be seen in the year of set off.

Pratibha Pipes & Structurals Ltd. v. CIT (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure–Bogus purchases- Accommodation entries-Additional grounds-Approval is not available in the file-On the basis of affidavit filed by the AO , the Tribunal is presumed that the approval was obtained before issue of notice–100% addition is confirmed for alleged bogus purchases, considering the statements and material available on the record. [S. 153A, 153D]

Omprakash Kukreja v. ACIT (2019) 308 CTR 68 / 176 DTR 244 (MP)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments–Excess stock-Restriction of addition to a sum of Rs. 10 lacs by way of estimate and preponderance of probability cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal.

CIT v. Orma Marble Palace (P) Ltd. (2019) 308 CTR 584 / 177 DTR 350 / 110 taxmann.com 186 (Ker.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed Orma Marble Palace (P) Ltd v CIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 436 (SC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments–evidence found during the course of search in respect of later years and not in respect of prior years–Held, such evidence can be used to make estimations even for the earlier years. [S. 158BB]

Alfa Bhoj Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 307 CTR 531 / 175 DTR 197 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Bogus share capital being Rs. 5.72 crores which was not returned or refunded–Assessee’s contention that additions be restricted considering peak credit as there was rotation of money is not sustainable.

PCIT v. M. J. Export Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 43B : Certain deductions on actual payment–Payment of interest on delayed payment of custom duty is part of duty– Allowable as deduction in the year of payment. [S. 37(1)]

Nangal Spun Pipe Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 177 DTR 393/ 108 taxmann.com 127 / 266 Taxman 8 ( Mag)/ 308 CTR 751 (P&H)(HC)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – During assessment proceedings, assessee submitted revised accounts showing all payments below Rs .20000 – Not accepted by any lower authority–Held, assessee failed to substantiate its claim – Held, no substantial question of law. [S. 260A]

Patterson & Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 179 DTR 193 / 105 taxmann.com 150 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible–Excessive or unreasonable–Agreement between assessee and related partnership firm in which one director had substantial interest –Expenditure disallowed in absence of genuineness of the transaction. [S.40A(2)(b)]

PCIT v. Atos India P. Ltd. (2019) 179 DTR 41 / 104 CCH 605 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Liquidated damages- Compensation for breach of contract where penalty stipulated– section covers cases where amount paid in case of breach– Liability crystallized and cannot be contingent in nature- Allowable as deduction. [Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 73, 74]