Category: Tax Laws

Archive for the ‘Tax Laws’ Category

PCIT v. Western Agri Seeds Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 244 /192 DTR 142/ 316 CTR 590 (Guj)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Capital or revenue -Acquisition of non-transferable sub-licence – Allowable as revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 236 (Bom)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Capital or revenue -Acquisition of technical know-how -Depreciation- Allowable as revenue expenditure . [ S.32(1) ]

CIT (LTU) v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 272 (Mad)(HC)

S.32: Depreciation —Uninterrupted power supply system for Computers —Entitled to depreciation at 60 Per Cent.

PCIT v V. A. Tech Wabag Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 424 ITR 105 (Mad) (HC)

S.28(i):Business loss —Fluctuation in rate of foreign exchange — Allowable as business loss . [ S.37(1) ]

CIT (E) v. India Habitat Centre (2020) 424 ITR 325 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Charging certain goods and services – Not commercial activities – Onus on department to prove profit motive – No change in nature of activities from earlier years – Principle of consistency is applicable- Entitle to exemption [ S.2(15) 12 , 13 80G(5)(v)]

National Co -Operative Development Corporation v .CIT (2020) 427 ITR 288 / 274 Taxman 187 / 119 137 / 193 DTR 409/ 316 CTR 593(SC) Editorial: Decision in National Co-Operative Development Council v. CIT [2008] 300 ITR 312 (Delhi) (HC) reversed.

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Business income- Income from other sources – Interest income – Assessable as business income – Real income theory – Diversion by overriding title – Assessee for preceding years not claiming adjustments does not preclude right of assessee to make out case of mistake at a subsequent date- Disbursements of grants was held to be core business of appellant expenditure incurred in course of business and for purpose of business is allowable as deduction -Recommendation-
A Committee of legal experts presided by a retired Judge can give its imprimatur to the settlement -A vibrant system of Advance Ruling can go a long way in reducing taxation litigation.- This is true even of disputes between the taxation department and private persons, who are more than willing to comply with the law of the land but find some ambiguity- A council for Advance Tax Ruling based on the Swedish model and the New Zealand system may be a possible way forward. [ S.4, 28(i), 56 ]

Shri Nawal Kishore Soni v. ACIT (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 68: Cash credits – Survey- Demonetization – Purchase of gold from sale proceeds – Sales cannot be assessed as undisclosed income – Only profit thereon could be taxed as income- Entire sales cannot be assessed as undislosed income – Provision of section 115BBE is cannot be made retrospectively – For the assessment year 2017-18 only net profit was directed to be taxed . [ S.115BBE 132 , 133A ]

Gangothri Textiles Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 423 ITR 382/ 189 DTR 380/ 314 CTR 776 / 269 Taxman 282 (Mad)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax –Concealment of income- Appeal- Failure to produce documents to prove there was no willful default -Additional evidence – Appellate Court has the power to admit additional evidence in the interest of justice . [ S.271(1) (c ) , 278B(3 ) , Criminal Procedure Code , 1973 , S. 190, 200 , 391 ]

Malanadu Tourist Home v. CIT (2020)423 ITR 262 (Ker)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Estimate of income- Possible view – Revision is held to be not justified – Dropping of concealment penalty by the Assessing Officer – Revision order directing to levy of 300% – Tribunal affirming 200% levy of penalty – Order of tribunal is affirmed . [S.133A, 271(1) (c ) ]

CIT v. Rane Trw Steering Systems Ltd. (2020)423 ITR 291 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Provision for warranty – Revision order is held to be not valid .[ S.143(3) ]