Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


DCIT v. E. Ramesh Upadhyay, HUF (2019) 69 ITR 164 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Hindu undivided family -Agricultural land -Partition- Fixed deposits–Benami names of family members–Retraction of statement-No assessment is made in larger Hindu undivided family–Additions can be made in the hands of smaller HUF-Investments in fixed deposits to be considered as unexplained investments of smaller HUF in equal shares- Matter remanded. [S. 132(4), 171]

ITO v. Trilok Chand Sain (2019) 174 ITD 729/ 199 TTJ 395 / 177 DTR 76 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Agricultural land-Gift-Agricultural land is an immovable property-Stamp valuation-It is immaterial whether they fall under definition of capital asset or stock-in-trade- Chargeable as gifts. [S. 2(14), 50C, 56(2)(viib), 69]

Pratish Manilal Modi (HUF) v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 736 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Business income–Investment in shares- Demarcated shares as investment in its balance sheet-Profit arising on sale of shares is chargeable to tax as capital gains and not as business income. [S. 28(i)]

Mohan Alagappan v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 1 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Fair market value of land–When exact valuation is not possible reasonably to fix market value of land by averaging value given by assessee and Assessing Officer.

Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 217/ 175 ITD 671/ 178 DTR 5 /199 TTJ 1003(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Project competition method- Provision for expenses–When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure–Not liable to deduct tax at source–No disallowance can be made. [S. 145]

ITO v. FIlco Trade Centre (2019) 69 ITR 99 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident–Purchase of bearings–Not liable to deduct tax at source –No disallowances can be made-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 195, Art. 26(3)]

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. ACIT ( 2019) 174 ITD 785 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Provision for salary-Sixth Pay Commission -liability on account of payment of revised enhanced salary had neither accrued nor crystallized during relevant assessment year, impugned- Provision made is not allowable as deduction.[S. 145]

Jackie Shroff v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 770/ 197 TTJ 568 / 174 DTR 161(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 28(i) : Business loss- Actor -Advance of money to production house -Write off of advances as non recoverable – Film was not successful- Loss is allowable as business loss or as business expenditure. [S. 37(1)]

Apne Aap Women Worldwide (India) Trust v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 84/175 ITD 381/ 177 DTR 193 / 199 TTJ 447 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions–On same of facts exemption was granted earlier years -Denial of exemption is held to be not valid – Payment to trustee- No evidence to show that the payment was excessive or unreasonable -Denial of exemption is not proper. [S.11, 12A, 13(1)(c)(d)]

Madhya Pradesh Madhyam v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 751/ 198 TTJ 949/ 178 DTR 180 (Indore) (Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Activities of publication of newspaper and complementary publication to provide information regarding Government welfare schemes to general public-Not carrying on activity in nature of trade or commerce- Eligible exemption. [S. 2(15), 10 (23C(iv)]