Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ACIT v. Karuna Estates & Developers. (2018) 170 ITD 249 (Visakh) (Trib.)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible – Excessive or unreasonable –Firm -Partner- When partners of the firm contribute land as stock in trade though provision of S.45(3) would not be applicable , AO can examine reasonableness of payment to partners [ S.45(3) ]

Eshan Minerals (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 753 (Pune)(Trib.)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Purchase of raw materials- Not liable to deduct tax at source [S.194C ]

ACIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells. (2018) 170 ITD 267 / 196 TTJ 355/ ( 2019) 174 DTR 289(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Professional fees paid to foreign company to know about tax law applicable in that Country could not be taxed in India as per Art 14 of the OECD Model Tax Convention hence not liable to deduct tax at source.

Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 22/163 DTR 259 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Interest under Jharkhand VAT Act, 2005 being compensatory nature is allowable as deduction. Penalties being not compensatory nature is held to be not allowable [ Jharkhand VAT Act , 2005 S. 30(1), 30(3), 30(4)(d),63(3) ]

ITO v. Metaoxide (P.) Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 235 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Though property remained vacant during relevant previous year benefit of S.23(1)(c ) is available . [ S.23(1) ( c ) ]

Owais M.Husain v ITO (2018) 194 TTJ 102/ 167 DTR 49( Mum) (Trib)

S.23: Income from house property- Annual value -Deemed rent to be computed on the basis of Municipal rateable value and not on the basis of market rent [ S.22 ]

Owais M.Husain v ITO (2018) 194 TTJ 102/ 167 DTR 49( Mum) (Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Personal effects- Sale of painting received by gift from father is held to be capital receipts – Amendment by Finance Act 2007 w.e.f 1-04 -2008 is prospective in nature . [ S.2(14),28(i) ]

Magammal @Thulasi v. T. B. Raju(SC) , www.itatonline.org

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HUF Law):
Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu Amendment) Act, 1989 –

S.29A: Married daughters are not co-parceners-As per the amendment Act only daughters of a coparcener who were not married at the time of commencement of the amendment of 1989 are is entitled to claim partition in the Hindu Joint Family Property. Married daughters are not coparceners and are not entitled to institute suit for partition and separate possession .

Mahabir Industries v. PCIT( 2018) 406 ITR 315/ 166 DTR 209/ 302 CTR 449/ 256 Taxman 201 (SC) , www.itatonline.org.Editorial: Decision in Strovekraft India v CIT ( 2018) 400 ITR 225 (HP) (HC) is reversed on this point.Also Refer , PCIT v. Aarham Softronics ( 2019) 261 Taxman 343 (SC)

S. 80IC: Special category States –Initial year- The fact that the assessee has earlier availed deduction u/s 80IA & 80IB is of no concern because deduction u/s 80IC is available from the “initial year” i.e. the year of completion of substantial expansion. The inclusion of period for the deduction availed u/s 80IA & 80IB, for the purpose of counting ten years, is provided in sub-section (6) of S. 80IC and it is limited to those industrial undertakings or enterprises which are set-up in the North-Eastern Region. [ S. 80IA,80IB ]

Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. DCIT ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 80IA :Industrial undertakings – Independent unit- Merely because the both units have a common excise registration , common electricity and water connection, exemption as separate unit cannot be denied .