Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sanjeeva Reddy Paga v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 439 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Tax savings investment – Matter remanded to thee Assessing officer [ S.80C ]

Renu Jain v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 621 / (2021) 186 ITD 175 ( Jaipur) (Trib)

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -amount deposited in capital gains accounts scheme before filing of return under section 139(4) – Entitled to exemption.[ S.45 , 139(4) ]

Satern Griha Nirman P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 359 (Kol) (Trib)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment – Employees’ State insurance -Evidence not produced – Disallowance justified .

Rajendra Kumar Sahoo v .ACIT (2020)79 ITR 10 / (2021) 186 ITD 483 / 211 TTJ 175/ 200 DTR 165 ( Cuttack ) (Trib)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Gold purchase – Making cash payments in different dates – Inserting some entries – Complete bills and vouchers not produced – Disallowance is held to be justified . [ R.6DD(J) , 6DD(k) ]

Sri Parameswari Projects P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 529 (SMC) ( Vishakha ) (Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Exhibitor of film – Payment to distributor on revenue shared basis – Neither Contractual payment nor rent – Not liable to deduct tax at source [S.194C(1) , 201 (1) ]

PIK Studios P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020)79 ITR 533 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation – Actual cost -Trade Mark — Revaluation — Depreciation to be claimed on cost incurred and not on revaluation figure —Total amount of depreciation cannot exceed depreciation to which assessee would be entitled if succession had not taken place [ S.43(1), Explanation 3, 47(xiii) ]

Sofina S. A. v. ACIT (IT) (2020)79 ITR 489/185 ITD 650 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Transfer of shares – Gains derived from alienation of any property taxable only in contracting state of which alienator is resident- Provisions of Act cannot override provisions of agreement – Gains from transfer of shares taxable in Belgium and not in India- DTAA – India – Belgium [ Art . 13(5) 13(6 ) ]

ITO v. A. Shihabudeen (2020) 79 ITR 280/182 ITD 91 (Cochin) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not specifying the charge- Valuation estimation- Levy of penalty is not justified- Below monetary limit –Department is precluded from filing an appeal before Appellate Tribunal [ S.253, 274 ]

Devender Kumar v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 419 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – No detailed finding – Matter remanded to CIT (A) to decide the issue by passing a reasoned order.

Dy. CIT v. Prakash Chand Sharma (2020)79 ITR 386( Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Addition set aside Levy of penalty is held to be not valid – Not specifying the charge – Levy of penalty is not valid – Penalty on account of deemed concealment is unsustainable as the Assessing Officer has not made any reference to any incriminating material or income declared by the assesssee [ S. 132(4) , 153A, Explanation 5, 274 ]