Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Vipin Kumar v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 68 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Land sold for residential purposes as per sale deed-Land recorded as agricultural land as per revenue record-Assessee, not applied for change of land-AO failed to enquire whole land in survey number converted to non-agricultural purpose or land falling to share of assessee-CIT(A) is directed to allow additional evidence-Matter Remanded. [S. 2(14) (iii), R. 46A]

Puran Pradhan v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 266 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Reference to D.V.O.-Value in report of D.V.O. lower-Report submitted after assessment order-CIT(A) ought to have considered the value of the report. [S. 45, 48]

Puran Pradhan v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 266 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Cost of acquisition-Fair market value on 01.04.1981-Correct F.M.V. to be considered-Assessee’s computation to be accepted. [S. 45, 50C, 55]

Sumit Export v. Asst. CIT (2023) 101 ITR 62 /148 taxmann.com 475 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Allotment of property-Date of acquisition of property to be reckoned with from date of allotment i.e., in year 1998-99, and thus sale of said office premises on 19-5-2012 would result in long term capital gains. [S. 2(29AA), 2(29B)]

Asst. CIT v. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (2023)101 ITR 359 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 43(1) : Actual cost-Subsidy cannot be deducted from W.D.W of block of asset. [Explanation-10]

Asst. CIT v. Ansal Landmark (Karnal) Township Pvt. Ltd. (2023)101 ITR 6 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Amount ceasing to be liability-Necessary details not supplied to AO-Evidence produced for the first time-Matter remanded.[S. 254(1)]

Saranya Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v ITO (2023)101 ITR 60 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

S. 40A (3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits –Additional evidence-No reasonable cause for admitting additional evidence.[ITATR. 29.]

Raju Kashyap v. Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 37 (SN)/ 222 TTJ 269 (SMC) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Business expediency-Claim not rebutted-Disallowance quashed.[R. 6DD]

Asst. CIT v. Dhar Construction Co. (2023)199 ITD 124/ 101 ITR 49 (SN)(Gauhati)(Trib)

S. 40(b)(v) : Amounts not deductible-Partner-Remuneration-Payments as per partnership deed-Permissible limit-Disallowance is not justified. [S. 15, 192]

Savla Agencies v. JCIT (2023)101 ITR 57 (SN) (All) (Trib)

S. 40(b)(iv) : Amounts not deductible-Partner-Interest-Interest payment to legal heirs of dead partner-Already subjected to tax deducted at source-Cannot be disallowed on the ground of passing of entry-Remanded. [S. 36(1) (iii), 194A]