Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Garsim Industries Ltd v .DCIT ( 2021) BCAJ – January -P. 47 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 244A : Refund – Interest on refunds – Un paid amount of tax the assessee entitle to interest this would not amount to granting interest on interest . [ S.244A(1) (b) ]

Tata Elxsi Ltd v. JCIT ( 2021) BCAJ- January – P 46 ( Bang) (Trib)

S. 80JJAA : Employment of new workmen – Exemption cannot be denied when the employees fulfilled the condition of being employed for 300 days for the year under consideration , even though such employees do not fulfil the condition of being employed for 300 days in the immediately preceding assessment year .

DCIT v. B.E.Billimoria & Co Ltd ( 2021 ) BCAJ-January -P 48 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 50 : Capital gains – Depreciable assets – Block of assets – Expenditure incurred on account of stamp duty , registration charges and society transfer fee , as per contractual terms is an allowable expenditure [ S.45, 50(1)(i) ]

Dineshkumar Verma v .ITI ( 2021 ) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P 123 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Once business income is offered on the presumption taxation , separate addition cannot be made as cash credits [ S.68 ]

AnandKumar v .ACIT ( 2021) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P 113 ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Presumptive taxation is not applicable to interest and remuneration received by a partnership firm [ S.28(v), 40(b) ]

Vedanta Ltd v. JCIT ( 2021 ) BCAJ-January P. 58 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision made for site restoration is a contingent liability – Allowable as deduction on the principle of commercial expediency .[ S.145 ]

CIT v. Bicon Ltd ( 2021) The Chamber’s Journal – January – P 115 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Discount in issue of ESOP is an allowable deduction – Contingent liability .[S.4, 143(3) 145, Companies Act , 1956 , S. 2(15A) ]

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle

CIT v. Adhiparasakhi Charitable Medical Educational Cultural Trust ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – December – P. 167 /Trust (2020) 121 taxmann.com 24/ (2021) 2021] 277 Taxman 333 (Mad) (HC) . ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Second application – No bar for filing second application [ S. 245D(1), 245K(2), Art , 226 ]