Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2019) 262 Taxman 127/ 178 DTR 177 (Mad.)(HC)/Editorial : SLP dismissed .Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 12 /304 Taxman 592 (SC)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Purchase of jewellery – failure to demonstrate a situation which compelled to make payment in cash- Disallowance is held to be justified.

PCIT v. Patel Alloy Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmnn.com 431/ 262 Taxman 167 (Guj.) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Patel Alloy Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 166 (SC)

S. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible–Excessive or unreasonable–Salaries to directors- Preceding year was accepted by revenue–No extraordinary increase in salary-Disallowance is held to be not justified.

PCIT v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (2019)104 taxmann.com 78/ 262 Taxman 301 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 301 (SC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident–Payments made to foreign law firms as consultancy fee which did not have any fixed base in India-Not taxable in India-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S. 9(1)(i), 195]

ITO v. Smartchem Technologies Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 359 /262 Taxman 192 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is allowed, ITO v. Smartchem Technologies Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 191 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Non-compete fee paid by assessee to founder of transferor company constituted business expenditure.

PCIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 104 taxmann.com 26 / 262 Taxman 312 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue, PCIT v. Lemon Tree Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 311 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Employee Stock option Plan (ESOP)-Expenditure incurred on allotment of shares under Employee Stock option Plan (ESOP) is held to be allowable as business expenditure.

Grace Shelter v. ACIT (2019) 262 Taxman 423 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Year of deduction-Slum development expenditure-Contingent upon authority giving vacant possession of plot-Authority was unable to hand over vacant possession of land-Disallowance of expenditure is held to be justified. [S. 145]

PCIT v. Premier Finance & Trading Co. Ltd. (2019) 262 Taxman 341 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Investment in share capital of sister concern, with a view to earn dividend income-Expenditure incurred is held to be allowable as deduction .

Hindustan Newsprint Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 262 Taxman 334 / 178 DTR 398/ 310 CTR 93 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss–Revaluation of obsolete inventories- Valuation was supported by technical experts–Allowable as business loss. [S. 145]

Shri Hardoi Baba Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 498/262 Taxman 320 (All)(HC)

S. 24 : Income from house property-Deductions-Business income from renting out its property-Depreciation was allowed–Deduction u/s 24 is not permissible. [S. 24, 32]

PCIT v. Seth Properties. (2019) 262 Taxman 124 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 23 : Income from house property-Annual value–Standard rent -illegal tenant – Deposit of certain compensation on monthly basis in Court, could not form basis to make addition to assessee’s rental income in respect of other tenants who are protected under Rent control Act. [S. 22, Delhi Rent Control Act.]