Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Yash Society .v. CIT (E) (2018) 163 DTR 337/301 CTR 729 (Bom)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes- Refund -Application for condonation of delay in filing return of income and claiming refund of TDS – PCIT rejected the application on merits of claim / extent of exemption and not considering the criteria required to be satisfied by assessee-Impugned order is set-aside to the file of PCIT for fresh disposal.[ S.237 ,264 ]

Vijay Kumar v CIT (2018) 161 DTR 278 /300 CTR 254 (J&K)(HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings – Activity of supplying the audio of the background sound to the film already shot by customers is manufacture and entitle to deduction.

Sreedhar Asok Kumar .v. CIT (2018) 253 Taxman 204 (Ker)(HC).

S. 45:Capital gains –Agricultural land – Mere categorization of land as Nilam (Paddy land) in revenue records is not sufficient to treat land as agricultural land – Land not being used for agricultural purposes assessable as capital gains .[S.2(14)(iii)]

Rehabilitation Plantations Ltd v. CIT (2018) 253 Taxman 522/ 166 DTR 433/ 305 CTR 213 (Ker)(HC).

S. 43(6) : Written down value – For computing WDV depreciation allowed under the State enactment cannot be reduced [S.32 . Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1991 ]

E.K. Thakur (Deceased) Through LR Gautam E Thakur .v. CIT (2018) 163 DTR 380 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability – Students who could not pass the examination would get 50 percent of fees as refund within two months from the declaration of results of examination – Contract between parties clear and Tribunal is right is holding that the unclaimed amounts were assessable to tax as deposit changed its character into income.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT (2018) 161 DTR 73/300 CTR 130 (SC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Application of income -Wrirte back of depreciation was allowed to be carried forward for application of income of subsequent years [ S.32 ]

Nitaben Harishbhai Shah v.TRO ( 2018)406 ITR 347/ 253 Taxman 222/ 163 DTR 442/302 CTR 406 ( Guj) ( HC)

S. 281 – certain transfers to be void – Tax Recovery officer (‘TRO’) has no jurisdiction to declare transaction of transfer of property as null and void in proceedings under rule 16 of Second Schedule to Act [ S.220, R.48 ]

Multibase India Ltd v.ITO (2018) 163 DTR 493 / 302 CTR 46 (Guj HC)

S. 237 : Refunds –CBDT- Excess deduction of tax deduction at source -Delay in disposal of application for refund by CBDT- High Court ccondones delay for making belated TDS refund claim for bonafide reason and directs the AO to decide on merits [ S. 119, 195 ]

R. Mani v.CCIT (2018) 406 ITR 450/253 Taxman 3/ 164 DTR 114/ 302 CTR 250 (Mad) (HC)

S. 234A: Interest – Default in furnishing return of income -Bonafide family dispute -Entitle to waiver of ninterest . [ S. 119,133A, 148,234B, 234C]

K. Kutaguptan v. Canara Bank (2018) 253 Taxman 88/166 DTR 65 / 305 CTR 431(Ker) ( HC)

S. 222 Collection and recovery – Certificate to Tax Recovery Officer -Time limit for sale of attached immovable property – the order of the DRT becomes final only after expiry of period prescribed for filing appeal and therefore 3 year period as stipulated by rule 68B for sale of attached property should be determined from such date when the order of DRT becomes final- Sale was held to be not time barred .