Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v .Gopalji K. Dwivedi ( Mum) (Trib) (UR)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Accommodation entries – Pravin Kumar Jain group –Loan confirmation , PAN no, copy of bank account of lender was produced – Submission was filed in pursuance of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act -Deletion of addition is held to be justified [ S.133(6)

R. N. Sahoo v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 20 ( SN) (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Firm — Capital introduction by partners — Addition is held to be not valid – The period during which the lockdown was in force shall stand excluded for the purpose of working out the time limit for pronouncement of orders, as envisaged in rule 34(5) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 .[ S.254(1) , ITAT R.34(5)]

Ajay Narendra Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 8 (SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 57 : Income from other sources – Deductions -Interest expenditure to be set off against interest earned . [ S. 28,(i) 36(1)(iii), 56, 57(iii) ]

Mohanrao Vishwanath Gaikwad v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 42 (SN) ( Pune) (Trib)

S.45: Capital gains —Transfer of property with co-owners —Consideration not received sale consideration -No capital gains could be taxed — Assessing Officer directed to verify non-receipt of consideration [ S. 2(47 )

Anil Dye Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. CIT (2020)79 ITR 30 (SN) (Trib) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 45 : Capital gains – Business income – Expenditure – Taxable as capital gains and not as business income .[ S.2(13) ,28(i) , 48 ]

Honey Rahulan (Smt.) v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 41 (SN) ( Cochin ) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation-Cash flow statement – Most of applications of income directly linked to business of assessee – Addition not warranted

Sangeeth Nursing Home v .ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 36 (SN)( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 40(b)(iv) : Amounts not deductible – Partner – Interest -Partners Declaring interest in their returns and assessments completed in their hands — Double taxation of same income both in hands of partners as well as firm – Interest payment is held to be allowable .

Vijaya Bhavani Constructions P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 24( SN) (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Self made vouchers – Ad-hoc disallowance of 15% of expenditure is based on surmises and conjectures – Held to be not valid .

R. N. Sahoo v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 20 ( SN) (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Disallowance is restricted to 10 % as against 20% disallowance affirmed by the CIT (A) .

R. N. Sahoo v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 20 ( SN) (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Onus on assessee to establish that interest-bearing loan not used to extend interest-free loan — Matter remanded.