Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


A. Shama Rao Foundation v. ACIT (2020)78 ITR 374 (Bang (Trib)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Application of income – Cost of acquisition of assets allowed as application of income —Cannot claim exemption on account of repayment of loan as application of income .

Popular Estate Management Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)78 ITR 261 ( Ahd) (Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Capital or revenue – Real estate development – Compensation for relinquishment of right to sue societies for breach of contract capital receipt not taxable as capital gains or business income [ S. 2(24) 28(i) , 45 ]

Dy. CIT v. BSL Ltd. (2020)78 ITR 348/ 183 ITD 675 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue – Interest subsidy – Technology upgradation fund scheme- Encourage capital investment by eligible unit in form of specified machinery- The AO is directed to verify issue of utilisation of amount of subsidy. [ S.28(i), 254(1) ]

Sanghamitra Pattnaik (Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 46 (SN) / 117 taxmann.com 179( Cuttack ) (Trib)

S. 271A : Penalty – Failure to keep maintain – Retain books of accounts –Documents – Failure to produce books of account – Levy of penalty is held to be justified .[ S.44AA, 273B ]

Vimalaben B. Patel ( Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 25 (SN) (Pune ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Penalty initiated under both limbs – Penalty levied for concealment of income – Levy of penalty is held to be not valid .

Unique Ways Management Service P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)79 ITR 11(SN)( Indore) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of expenses -Amount debited in profit and loss account — Neither concealment of income nor furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — Penalty not warranted. [ S.14A , R.8D ]

Frontier Business Systems P. Ltd. v ITO (2020) 79 ITR 34 (SN) ( Bang ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of expenses due to not deduction of tax at source – Disallowance of expenses on Corporate social responsibility expenses – Levy of penalty is held to be not valid .[ S. 37(1) ,40(a)(1), 40(a)(iii) ]

Deverasetty Venkata Subba Rao (Late) v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 6 ( SN) ( Vishakha ) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Notice of assessment and assessment order completed in name of legal representative — Issue of notice on late assessee and consequent assessment invalid — Revision is held to be in valid .[ S.143(2) , 143(3) ]

Rajan Roy (Late) v. ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 3 ( SN) ( Delhi ) (Trib) (

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Asssessee expired after filing of appeal – Legal heirs were not brought on record – Authorised representative appeared before the CIT(A) on behalf of deceased – Appeal is not maintainable – Legal heirs has to file Form No 35 before CIT (A)bringing the legal heirs on record after intimating death of the assessee to the CIT (A) -Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A) to decide the matter in accordance with law . [S.250 , Form , 35 , 36 ]

Prakash Ramachandra Prabhu v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 27 (SN) ( Bang) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Delay of eight years – Misleading facts – Refusal to condone the delay is held to be justified [ S.249 , 254(1)