Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Mihir Bipin Parekh v. Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 5 ( SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S.28(i): Business Loss — Import duty —Non-payment of duty would have resulted in substantial losses for assessee and damaged reputation in market — Loss is allowable as business Loss out of commercial expediency .[ S.37(i) ]

S. K. Minerals Handling P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 18 (SN)(Cuttack ) (Trib)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Not recording of satisfaction – No disallowance could be made- 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), R.8D ]

Dy. CIT (E) v Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool Trust (2020)79 38 ITR (SN)( Vishakha (Trib)

S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions –Excess amount charged refunded – Neither a case of violation or diversion of fund – Entitle to exemption -Application of income- Normal commercial principle should be applied [ S.11, 12A, 13(1)( c ), 13(2)(g), 144, 145 ]

Awas Nivas Foundation v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 26 (SN)( Bang) (Trib)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Registered address- Matter remanded [ S.80G]

Shree Mohanananda Samaj Seva Samity v. ITO ( E) (2020)79 ITR 43 (SN) ( Kol) (Trib)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Merely because some profit arising from activity — Entitle to exemption . [ S. 11(2) , 12A ]

Sumesh Kumar v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 2 (SN) ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 10(37) : Capital gains – Agricultural land – With in specified urban limits – Enhanced compensation – Entitle to exemption [ Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.28 ]

Varusai Mohammed Rowther Kazakamal v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 1(SMC) (SN) ( Chennai (Trib)

S. 10(1) : Agricultural income – Coconut Trees and Mango orchard on land – Income derived is assessable as agricultural income .

Sudha Agro Oil and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 520 ( Vishakha) (Trib)

S. 271E : Penalty – Repayment of loan or deposit -Loans from directors – Reasonable cause – Repayment by demand draft – levy of penalty is not justified .

Sunray Cotspin (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 79 ITR 193 ( Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Share application money – Share premium- Merely because assessment order silent, order could not be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to Interests of revenue – Revision order was quashed . [ 56(2)(vii)(b), 68, 143(3] ]

Snowhill Agencies P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 79 ITR 176/193 DTR 73/ 206 TTJ 998 ( Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Merger – Amalgamated Company filing return after merger in its name —Revision upon non-existent entity — Not valid [ S.143(3) ]