Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


J. Srinivasan v. ACIT (2018) 404 ITR 51 / 303 CTR 827/ 168 DTR 331(Mad) (HC)

S. 275 : Penalty – Bar of limitation – Concealment – Notices issued after period of limitation as per first limb of S.275(1)(a) hence barred by limitation [ S. 271(1)(c),275 (1)(a) ]

Gurpal Singh Brar v. ITO (2018) 404 ITR 58 (P&H) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Limitation-Delay of 326 days -No reasonable cause -Delay was not condoned .[ Limitation Act, 1963,S.5 ]

CIT v. C. S. Seshadri. (2018) 404 ITR 191 (Mad) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Commission-Order of remand was held to be valid [ S.37(1) ]

Manjula Athur. v. ITO (2018) 404 ITR 177 / 165 DTR 314 (Mad) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment —Duty of the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons recorded to the assessee and proper procedure to be followed -Matter was set a side . [ S.148 ]

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 105/ 165 DTR 72/ 304 CTR 531 (Guj) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Cash credits – Share application money -Shell companies Bogus accommodation entries – Report from investigation wing having live link with formation of belief – Proviso added by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from April 1, 2013 did not change the position- Reassessment was held to be valid . [ S. 68, 143(3),148 ]

Shri Ram Kutir Khandsari Udyog P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 185 (All) (HC)

S.145: Method of accounting -Valuation of stock —Tribunal taking only market rate one day later for determining valuation of stock-in-trade is held to be not consistent with law — Tribunal was directed to reconsider valuation of closing stock on the basis of principles established by law.

Kaushalya Devi (Dec) Through LR v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 136/166 DTR 258 / 255 Taxman 417/ 304 CTR 961(Delhi) (HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains – Computation -Payment of liquidated damages in discharge of liability under earlier agreement to sell is held to be allowable expenditure-The expression “expenditure” used in clause (i) in S 48 should be given the same meaning as used in S.37(1) , except that the expenditure may also be capital in nature. Settlement of a claim and payment made can amount to expenditure [ S. 37(1),45 ]

CIT v. Infant Jesus Education Society. (2018) 404 ITR 85 (P&H) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution- Kindergarten Class — Though the provisions of right to education Act is not applicable to assessee exemption cannot be denied . [S. 10(23)(vi),Right of Children to Free and Compulsory education Act , 2009 ]

CIT v. C. S. Seshadri. (2018) 404 ITR 191 (Mad) (HC)

S.2(24)(iv): Business Income —Amount paid by company towards personal expenses of assessee is held to be not taxable.

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi. (2018) 404 ITR 173 (Mad) (HC)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset-Agricultural land- Land entered in revenue records as agricultural land — Agricultural income from land declared and accepted by the revenue – Onus is on department to prove contrary — Profits on sale of land is not assessable to capital gains tax.[ S.45 ]