Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Shrikant Mohta. v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 43 / 170 DTR 50/ 304 CTR 650/( 2019) 414 ITR 270 (Cal)(HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Search- Return is filed by assessee within reasonable time permitted by issue of notice under S. 153A(1)(a), such return will be deemed to have been filed within time permitted under S. 139(1) for benefit under S. 139(3) to be availed of by assessee [ S.80, 139, 153A ]

CIT v. Rakesh Ramani. (2018) 256 Taxman 299/ 168 DTR 356 (Bom) (HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money -Search and seizure -Block assessment -Statement on oath- Merely on the basis that assessee in course of statement made under S. 132(4) had admitted that said jewellery belonged to him, could not be sustained ,when in the course of assessment proceedings established that jewellery seized from him actually belonged to his employer – There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced by assessee only at time when seizure has been made and not during assessment proceedings .[ S.132(4) , 158BC ]

CIT v.Ranjeet Singh Yadav ( 2018) 257 Taxman 252 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v . Ranjeet Singh Yadav. (2018) 257 Taxman 29 (SC)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments -Search -Advance receipts- Real estate business-Amounts were received from bulk purchasers as per agreement and, that assessee had also filed cash flow statement and looking to modus operandi of business said sums were verifiable, thus, no addition was required to be made on this account

Gopal S. Pandit. v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 346/ 257 Taxman 50 / 172 DTR 23/( 2019) 307 CTR 112(Karn) (HC)

S. 54B : Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes -Sale deed for purchase and sale of land, found that assessee sold this land within two years from date of its purchase and not used land for agricultural purposes for a minimum period of two years before its sale -Not entitle exemption- Moreover, from expenses incurred, it could be proved that said land was never used for agricultural purposes after it was purchased by assessee as assessee was concentrating on its improvement rather than cultivation. [ S.45 ]

CIT v Keerthi Agro Mills (P.) Ltd. ( 2017) 405 ITR 192/ 87 taxmann.com 31 ( Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;PCIT v. Keerthi Agro Mills (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Agricultural produce – Paddy from farmers- No disallowance can be made [ R.6DD ]

PCIT v. Juned B. Memon (2018) 256 Taxman 380 (Guj) (HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits of Rs 20,000 -Inflated purchase expenditure by raising bogus claims – Only profit element embedded there in should be brought to tax and not the entire expenditure .[ S.37(1), 145 ]

Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 543/ 257 Taxman 79/ 171 DTR 151/ 305 CTR 269 (Mad) ( HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure- Capital or revenue -Abandoned projects – State Government ordered closure of implementation of said project – Same line of existing business- Allowable as business expenditure.

Indian Galvanics Cyrium Foils Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 257 Taxman 32 / 303 CTR 800/ 168 DTR 241 (Bom) (HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure- Education expenses of director’s son- No direct nexus with the business of the company – Not allowable as deduction .

Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank. JCIT (2018) 256 Taxman 349 (Karn)( HC)

S. 36(1)(viii) : Eligible business – Special reserve -Artificial increase of profit by assessee by adding back amortization and depreciation in SLR investment so as to arrive higher amount of profit for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(viii) was unjustified.

CIT v. Keventer Agro Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 437 (Cal) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Manufacture and sale of fruit juice and like products- Joint venture company for production of milk -Interest borrowed for setting up of joint venture is held to be allowable as deduction.