Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v. Indiabulls Ventures Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 5 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Computer software-60% depreciation is allowable.

ACIT v. Chadha Papers Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 38 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-No exempt income during the year-No disallowance can be made.[R. 8D]

Bahar Agrochem And Feeds P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 80 ITR 24 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Only exempt income yielding investments to be considered to compute disallowance. [S. 115JB, R. 8D]

ITO(E) v. Dr. Bhai Mohan Singh Foundation (2020) 80 ITR 27 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Trust entitled carry forward deficit of current year and to set it off against income of subsequent years. [S. 11((1)(a), 12A]

ACIT v. Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (2020) 80 ITR 1 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purpose-A Statutory body established for acquisition of land for Industrial Infrastructure- Operating on non profit basis-Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(15), 32]

Dy. CIT v. Dutyfree Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 32 (SN.) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 10AA : Special economic zones-Trading covered by Services under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005-Entitle to deduction-Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 has overriding effect over provisions contained in any other Act. [Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, S. 2(z), 51]

Dy.CIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt . Ltd.) (SC) www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.[ Art . 14 ]

SANJAY DUGGAL V. ACIT (DELHI)(TRIB), WWW.ITATONLINE.ORG

S.153D:ASSESSMENT – SEARCH -APPROVAL – APPROVAL HAS TO BE GIVEN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND – MECHANICAL APPROVAL IS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW . [ S.132

V. S. Unnikrishnan v. ITO (IIT ) (2021) 86 ITR 11 (SN)/ 198 DTR 73/ 209 TTJ 681 (Mum)(Trib). www.itatonline.org

S. 17(2:PERQUISITE – ESOP BENEFITS GRANTED TO AN ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS RESIDENT AND IN CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN INDIA IS TAXABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT IN THE YEAR OF EXERCISE- DTAA -INDIA – UAE [ S.15 , ART .15 ]

PCIT(C)-3 V. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF) (DELHI)(HC), WWW.ITATONLINE.ORG

S. 153A : Assessment – Search-Assessment on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act) is not valid. The Assessee also had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness [ S. 132 , 153C ]