Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


CIT v. Makwana Brothers & Co. (HWP) (2018) 161 DTR 289 (Bom) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Project containing commercial units to the extent permitted by rules and regulation is allowable as deduction. Tribunal is justified in allowing partial deduction only in respect of building completed.

CIT v Shipra Estate Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 332 /301 CTR 34 (All) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects -Commencement of construction before 1-10-1998- If either the development or the construction starts before the specified date, the benefit of deduction is not allowable . [ S.80IA(5)]

CIT v Russian Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 300 CTR 501 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Claridges Hotels ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 300 CTR 501 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application – The assessees has filed balance sheet confirmation etc, addition cannot be made merely on suspicion , if AO has any doubt he should make enquiry with lenders bank etc .

CIT v Narinderjit Singh (2018) 161 DTR 200 / 300 CTR 217 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37 (1) : Business expenditure – Provision for deficiency in service – Ascertained liability – Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation -Addition cannot be made. [ S.145 ]

CIT v Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 595/ 162 DTR 281/ 301 CTR 552/ 253 Taxman 292 (Ker) ( HC)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Trade discount – Agents’ deposit – Regular business transactions cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

Promain Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 188 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Statement u/s 132(4) can be used against the assessee only if the statement has relevance to any incriminating document or material found during course of search -Block assessment is held to be bad in law.[ S. 132(4) ]

Prinku landfin (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application-Investors have complied with details u/s 133(6) and the summons was not issued to the investors though request was made by the assessee, addition was held to be not justified . [ S. 131,133(6) ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.147: Reassessment -In the notice u/s 143(2) earlier assessment year is mentioned , the said notice cannot be said to be in valid [ S.143(2), 148 ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.69: Unexplained investments –Family settlement- Sale deed showed cash consideration was paid therefore addition as unexplained investment was held to be justified .

Tarlochan Singh v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 171 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.45: Capital gains- Family settlement – As per the will the assessee was not entitle to receive any property. As the assessee had no right title in the property accordingly the some received towards one time settlement cannot be assessed as capital gains . However the amount received by the assessee requires verification hence the matter was remanded .[ S.2(47) ]