Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Dy.CIT v. Saifee Jubiee High School and Madressa Yusufiyan Society (2018) 63 ITR 89 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation –Charitable Trust- Price approved by Charity Commissioner has to be followed, where the Assessee is a public charitable trust. [S. 45]

DCIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd.(2018) 63 ITR685 / 52 CCH 520 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 43B : Certain deductions only on actual payment – Contributions to provident fund and employees’ state insurance – Contribution deposited beyond prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts but before due date of filing return under income tax Act is allowable.

Ozoneland Agro Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018)53 CCH 427 / 64 ITR 6 (SN)(Mum)(Trib.)www.itatonline.org

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Corporate entity – even if no business was carried out during the year, expenditure incurred by it has to be allowed.

DCIT v. Rajendra Bansilal Raisoni (2018) 66 ITR 655 / 53 CCH 606(Pune)(Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital – AO cannot step into the shoes of the businessmen – Interest is allowable on borrowed funds used for the purpose of business.

DCIT v SB Packaging Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 569 / 52 CCH 511 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 32 : Depreciation – Injection moulding machine falls under the category of ‘Moulds’ and therefore shall qualify for higher rate of depreciation.

DCIT v. Rasna Pvt Ltd (2018) 66 ITR 577 /53 CCH 0585 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 32 : Depreciation – Depreciation is allowable non-compete territory rights – Department’s action of not filing an appeal against the CIT(A) favourable order in earlier year gives finality to the dispute.

Siddhesh Capital Market Service v DCIT (2018) 52 CCH 003 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – No automatic disallowance can be made[ R.8D].

Dy.CIT v. Rasna Pvt Ltd. ( No 2) (2018) 66 ITR 689 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Disallowance has to be made where the assessee cannot furnish any evidence to prove that the investments were made in earlier years.[ R. 8D]

Dy.CIT v. Phoenix Lamps Ltd (2018)64 ITR 466/ 52 CCH 0576 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 10AA: Special economic zones -Assessee manufacturing different items in different units – No dispute about unit wise profitability declared by assesse – Remand report accepting cost of goods were reconciled – Addition made by AO to be deleted.

Qualcomm Incorporated v. DDIT (2018) 65 ITR 248/52 CCH 0338 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty – Consideration paid for copyrighted article is not royalty and hence cannot be brought to tax either under Act or under DTAA