Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


The Presbyterian Church Co-operative Credit and Thrift Society Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 112 ITR 289 /163 taxmann.com 1070 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 80P: Co-operative societies-Mentioning of status in the return of income as ‘AOP’ as against ‘co-operative society’ would not disentitle the assessee the benefits of deduction claimed u/s. 80P (2)(a)(i) of the Act. [S. 2(31), 80P(2(a)(i), 139, 143(1)]

ITO v. Jamna Auto Industries (2024) 111 ITR 569 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 80IC : Special category States-Fall in gross profit rate-Diversion of profits to subsidiary-May require scrutiny at the hands of the subsidiary under section 80IA (10) and not the Assessee. [S,80IA(10)]

CIT (Dy.) v. ABCI Infrastructure P. Ltd. (2024) 111 ITR 10 (SN) (Guwahati)(Trib.)

S. 80IA : Infrastructure facility-Search and seizure-claim though not claimed in the original return filed before search-Assessee is entitled to the deduction. [S.80IA(4), 139(1),139(5), 153A]

Baijmath Somani Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 705 /230 TTJ 224/238 DTR 321 (Kol)(Trib.) Satyanarayan Somani Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 705 /230 TTJ 224/238 DTR 321 (Kol)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Registration-After grant of provisional approval, the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the institution had already commenced its activities even prior to grant of provisional registration.[S.80G(5)(iv), Form No 10AC.]

Muthi Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 51(SN) (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Denial of registration-Delay in filing Form No.10AB for renewal-Circular 6/2023,-Directed to consider the registration on merits. [S.12AB, 80G(5)]

Teddy Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 112 ITR 569 / 164 taxmann.com 474 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Denial of registration-The extended time limit of 30.09.2023 as per CBDT Circular 29 dated 24.05.2023 would apply to Form No.10AB-CIT(E) is directed to consider the application on merits without raising the issue of timeline. [S.80G(5)(iv), Form No 10AB, 10AC]

ITO v. Chandresh Chhaganlal Mehta (2024) 111 ITR 93 (SN) (Mum)(Trib) ITO v. Mustafa Zainuddin Nalawala (2024)111 ITR 93 (SN) (Mum)(Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources-Bogus purchases-Accommodation entries-Information from Sales Tax Department-Addition aat 12.5 Per Cent. of bogus purchases is held to be justified.

CIT (Dy.) v. Seo Lehenga House (2024) 111 ITR 681 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Commission-Bogus purchases and sales-Gross profit offered to tax-No separate addition can be made.

ITO v. Rajesh Amulakhrai Sanghvi, (2024) 111 ITR 500 (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Purchases are recorded in the books and corresponding sales are accepted-The entire amount of alleged bogus purchases should not be added to income-Gross profit rate of 12.5% on such purchases is reasonable. [S.133(6), 147]

Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 111 ITR 81(SN) (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 69C: Unexplained expenditure-Income from undisclosed sources-bogus purchases-An addition of four percent of bogus purchases is held to be appropriate.[S.68]