Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 273 Taxman 546 / 196 DTR 248 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Unabsorbed depreciation -Can be set off against sum chargeable to tax as income u/s 68 of the Act – Provision of S.115BBE which barred set off of losses against income determined u/s 68 was effective from 1-4 -2017 and not applicable for the Assessment year 2006 -07 [ S. 32 , 68 71 ,115BBE ]

CIT v. Manojbhai Bhupatrai Vadodaria (2020) 273 Taxman 220 / 317 CTR 278 / 194 DTR 201 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account – Set off of gross unaccounted payments on certain transactions against unaccounted receipts for computing undisclosed investment – Non recovery of cash paid cannot be allowed as deduction . [ S 37 (1),69C ]

PCIT v. Kunvarji Commodities Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2020) 274 Taxman 162 / 193 DTR 18 / (2021) 432 ITR 180 / 318 CTR 597 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Client code modification – Commodity broker – Statement was retracted – Deletion of addition is held to be justified [ S. 132 (4), 153A, 260A ]

CIT v. Shardlow India Ltd. (2020) 193 DTR 73 / 316 CTR 297 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 47(v) : Capital gains – Transaction not regarded as transfer – Subsidiary to holding company – 25% of share holding is held by nominee share holding of holding company – Exemption cannot be denied [ S.45 ]

PCIT v. Sumukha Synthetics (2020) 275 Taxman 418 / 195 DTR 445 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Bank account was attached – Disallowance of 20% is held to be not justified [ R.6DD(j)]

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 274 Taxman 12 / 191 DTR 267 / 316 CTR 180 (Ker.)(HC

S.40(a)(iib):Amounts not deductible- Royalty, licence, fee, etc. (Gallonage fee, licence fee and shop rental (kist)) -Disallowable – licence granted to assessee for retail trade could not be sustained – Surcharge on sales tax- Surcharge on sales tax or turnover tax paid by assessee-company was not a ‘fee or charge’ coming within sweep of section 40(a)(iib), thus, same could not be disallowed . [ S.37 (1) ]

CIT v. Sri Parameswari Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd. (2020) 196 DTR 206 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment to contractor – Belated filing of form No 26Q- No disallowance could be made for failure to deduct tax at source [ S.194C (c)]

CIT v. NCR Corporation (P.) Ltd. (2020) 274 Taxman 139 / 193 DTR 66 (Karn)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue – Expenditure of lease premises – Allowable as revenue expenditure .

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. UOI (2020) 273 Taxman 507 / 196 DTR 29 / 317 CTR 843 (Delhi)(HC)

S.35: Scientific research – Directed the petitioner to make representation before the competent authority and the Competent was directed to consider the said application with in four weeks of receipt of the application [ Art .226 ]

CIT v. NCR Corporation (P.) Ltd. (2020) 274 Taxman 139 / 193 DTR 66 (Karn)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation – ATM can be regarded as computer – Eligible depreciation at rate of 60 % .