Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Star Entertainment Media (P) Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 66 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Marketing and publicity expenses-Star Pravaha-Star Maza-Allowable as business expenditure incidental benefit to some other party from such expenses, would not reduce allowability of such expenditure.

CIT v. KEC International Ltd. (2020) 269 Taxman 275 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital Investment in group companies for strategic business purpose-Allowable as deduction.

CIT(E) v. India Habitat Centre (2020) 269 Taxman 401 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Primary aim and objective to promote habitat concept-Registered as Charitable Trust-Principle of mutuality not required to be gone in to-Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(15), 12, 13]

PCIT v. Prince Water House (2020) 270 Taxman 307 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Risk Policy Premium-Revision barred by limitation-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 37(1)]

Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Reference to DVO-Grounds not raised before the Tribunal-Not allowed to raise the ground in an appeal before High court. [S. 45, 50C, 254(1)]

Vattiyoorkavu Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 270 Taxman 274 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Dismissal of appeal as defective and also stay application-Matter remitted to Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration and decision afresh on merits. [S. 271B, Art. 226]

Suresh Anuradha v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 124 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Pendency of Appeal before CIT (A)-Directed to deposit Rs. 2 lakhs and stay was granted till disposal of appeal. [S. 220(6), 246A]

Vinodbhai Jivrajbhai Radbiya v. ITO (2020) 270 Taxman 304 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Any hypothesis or contingency that may emerge in future-Protective addition-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Sheetal Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 270 Taxman 316 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Housing project-Completion certificate issued within four years from date of obtaining permission-Re assessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 80IB(10), 148 Art. 226]

Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Industrial building-Failure to produce confirmation-Expenses in relation to cost of construction of gala is held to be not allowable as deduction. [S. 45, 260A]