Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283 /(2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability–Not claimed any deduction of any trading liability in any earlier year-Addition cannot be made.

CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 251 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 40A(9) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Bonus to employees-Contribution made by assessee-company to various clubs meant for staff and their families was admissible as deduction [S. 37(1)]

CIT v. Bhanot Construction & Housing Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 262 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source–Payee filed the return and offered the sum received from the assessee – Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect from 1-4-2010-No disallowances can be made. [SD. 194J, 201]

CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283/ / (2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Illegal Commission-Volcker Committee Report – No finding that the asesee had made payment – Deletion of addition held to be justified.

PCIT v. Paramount Financial Services (2019) 261 Taxman 128 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Financial services-Sub–brokerage– Disallowance of 10% sub brokerage is held to be justified.

CIT v. Grace Colonizers (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 176 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Provision for project expenses – TDS was also deduced – Held to be allowable. [S. 145]

Sangeetha Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 61/ 261 Taxman 220 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Failure to establish that the expenses related to Hotel business was her proprietorship business – Disallowance was confirmed.

Vikram Somany v. CIT (2019) 261 Taxman 226 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Investment in acquiring control of two companies–Disallowance of expenditure on imaginary income and expenditure of subsequent year is held to be not justified – Expenditure is held to be allowable. [S. 14A, 57]

PCIT v. Vardhman Chemtech (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 233/ 179 DTR 35/(2020)423 ITR 241 (P&H)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Unless and until there is receipt of exempted income for concerned assessment year, section 14A is not attracted.[R. 8D]

PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Applicability of Rule 8D is not mandatory in every case where assessee earns tax free dividend income – Rule 8D cannot be invoked and applied unless Assessing Officer records his dissatisfaction regarding correctness of claim made by assessee in relation to expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. [S. 10(34), R.8D ]