Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


ACIT v.M. Raghuraman ( 2018) 169 ITD 315 ( Chennai) ( Trib)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence-When entire capital gain is invested in a flat under construction , exemption cannot be denied on the ground that possession was not given [ S.45 ]

ACIT v.M. Raghuraman ( 2018) 169 ITD 315 ( Chennai) ( Trib)

S.56: Income from other sources- Business income- Business discontinued- Interest earned on inter -corporate deposit was held to be assessable as income from other sources and not as business income [ S. 28(i) ]

Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 304/ 169 DTR 396/ 195 TTJ 536 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 140A : Self assessment -Failure to pay self assessment tax , penalty cannot be levied [ S. 221 ]

Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 304/ 169 DTR 396/ 195 TTJ 536 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax -Book profit- In view of Explanation 1(v) of sub-section (1) of S. 234B, MAT credit has to be allowed from ‘assessed tax’ and, thereafter, interest to be computed [

Gifford & Partners Ltd v. ADI. ( 2018) 169 ITD 224/193 TTJ 75 / 165 DTR 190 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Law of limitation will be governed by the law applicable when the order of Tribunal was passed and not as per amended law with effect from 1-06-2016 Since taxability of FTS is 15% earlier direction of Tribunal to tax at 20% is amended -DTAA-India- UK[ S.115A, art. 13(2) ] .

Flipkart India ( P) Ltd v. CIT (2018) 169 ITD 211/165 DTR 1 / 193 TTJ 266(Bang) (Trib.)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Failure to make out any prima facie case in its favour the Tribunal directed the assessee to pay deposit 50 percent of demand in question and furnishing the Bank Guarantee for balance amount . [ S. 220,254(1)]

Cinetech Entertainment India ( P) Ltd v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 218 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 32: Depreciation -Computer- Film projector cannot be said to be computer eligible for higher rate of depreciation @ 60%.

Solvay Pharma India Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 169 ITD 13/ 192 TTJ 394 /163 DTR 249 / 62 ITR 643 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure -Advertisement , Marketing and business promotion expenses (AMP) by pharmaceutical company for promoting sale and brand was held to be allowable business expenditure. Revision was held to be not valid [ S. 263 ],

Allahabad Bank v. DCIT ( 2018) 169 ITD 189 ( Kol) ( Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Bank-Amortisation of premium paid for purchase of securities was to be allowed as deduction .

ACIT v.Narendra J.Bhimani ( 2018) 169 ITD 245 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains- Business income- Sale of land in small plots as required by end users is assessable as capital gains. [ S. 28(i)]