Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


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.

Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 89 Taxmann.com 238 ( Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee, Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 294 (SC)

S. 23: Income from house property – Annual value -Vacancy allowance -Construction business- Some flats constructed by assessee were not let out during year -Properties held as stock-in-trade were not let out for any previous years, vacancy allowance is not available-Liable to pay tax on the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year under S. 23(1)(a) of the Act. [ S. 22,23(1)(a), 23(1)(c) ]

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

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Disallowance cannot be made in excess of actual exempted income-Matter remanded . [ R.8D ]

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

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Capital or revenue -Power subsidy received by assessee company from State Government under Power Intensive Industries Scheme, 2005, for setting up a new industrial unit in backward area was capital receipt and, thus, not liable to tax