Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Meena Gupta v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline .org Sheela Aggarwal v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Garima Agarwal, v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Narender Kumar v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Hanuman Prasad v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Gaurav Aggarwal v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Sourav Jindal v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – Information from investigation wing – Objections not disposed – Material not confronted with the reasons recorded – Reassessment notice was quashed .[ S.148 ]

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Ramesh Babulal Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Manju Ramesh Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Vishal Ramesh Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Rajesh Babulal Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains – Bogus capital gains from penny stocks- The AO has not discharged the onus of controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record any cogent material to sustain the addition as cash credits – Entitle to exemption- Addition as estimated commission income also deleted . [ S.10(38) 68 ]

Soni Sonu (Smt.) v. ACIT ( Delhi) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.45: Capital gains -Family settlement – The amount received on re-alignment of shareholding pursuant to family settlement arrangement is held to be liable to capital gains tax- on facts Owelty be claimed as part of family settlement is not exempt from capital gains tax [ S.2 (47) 47 ]

Vijaykumar Satramdas Lakhani v. CBDT ( 2020) 195 DTR 121/ 317 CTR 249/ (2021) 276 Taxman 470 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate – Order of rejection application was quashed – An ordinance made by the President is not an executive act- Power to promulgate ordinance is legislative in nature.-Directed the Assessing officer to decide the application on merit with in period of six weeks . [Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 , S 3, S. 119 , Art , 226 ]

Sindhu Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( Bang) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Beyond the period of limitation – Order passed is held to be bad in law . [ S.139(9) ]

Chhaya B. Parekh (Ms) v.CIT ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -Claim of exemption cannot be denied even though the House property which the assessee had purchased as co-¬owner had been
demolished before completing 3 years of purchase and no new house property was constructed.-Does not violate section 54F(3) of the Act. [ S. 2(47) 45, 54F(3) ]

Benedicta Mary Mendonce ( Ms.) v ITO ( Bang ) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 45 : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Valuation report of DVO was less than the stamp valuation – Valuation report given by the DVO cannot be ignored and directs that the value as determined by the DVO be adopted for the purpose of determining the full value of consideration received on transfer of capital asset for computing LTCG as laid down in S..50C(3) of the Act [ S.50C(2)(b) , 50C(3) ]

Vaduganathan Talkies v. ITO ( 2020) 428 ITR 224/275 Taxman 599 ( Mad ) (HC)/ Lena Talkies v. ITO( 2020) 428 ITR 224/ 275 Taxman 599 ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Commercial expediency – Not eligible deduction [ R.6DD ]

PCIT v. V .Hotels Ltd 429 ITR 54/ 275 Taxman 106/ 317 CTR 377 / 194 DTR 369 ( Bom) (HC) ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 32 : Depreciation – Rate of depreciation – FSI – Intangible asset-FSI purchased from Government of Maharashtra- held eligible for depreciation at the rates applicable to the Building @ 10% and not to Intangible assets @ 25% [ S.32(1)(ii), 43(6)(c ) ]

J. Stephen v. ITO ( 2018) 256 Taxman 172 / (2020)425 ITR 561 (Mad) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Dismissal of appeal on grounds of delay in fling of appeal – Cash credits -No substantial question of law [ S .68 254(1) ]