Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Grace Collis (2001) 248 ITR 323/115 Taxman 326/166 CTR 201 (SC)

S. 45: Capital gains –Transfer – Extinguishment of rights – Not limited to transfer – Extends to extinguishment of rights independent of or otherwise than on account of transfer. [S. 2 (47) (ii), 47(ii) , 47(vii), 49(2), Companies Act , 1956 , S 391(2) , 394 ]

T.D. Venkata Rao v. UOI (1999) 237 ITR 315/103 Taxman 621/153 CTR 203 (SC)

S. 44AB: Audit of accounts – Only Chartered Accountants can audit accounts of business of an assessee – Income Tax Practitioners do not have the same expertise – Section does not violate Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India – Constitutionally validity of provision upheld [S. 288(2), Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 14 , 19]

Allied Motors (P) Ltd v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677/139 CTR 364/91 Taxman 205 (SC)

S. 43B : Certain deductions on actual payment-Tax, duty, cess or fee-Proviso clarifying that sums paid after accounting year but before due date for submission of return deductible is to be treated as retrospective. [ S. 43B ]

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co (1997) 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357/141 CTR 290 (SC)

S. 41(2) : Profits chargeable to tax – Balancing charge – Slump sale – Business as going concern – Gain is liable to tax u/s 41(2) on itemized basis if slump price is determined on valuation of each asset/liability – Body of individuals – Where firm has sold its business as a going concern, surplus arising out of transaction has to be assessed in status of BOI and not as a firm . [ S. 2(31)(iv) , 2(31)(v), 2(42C ) 4, 45 , 50B ]

Shree Choudhary Transport Co. v. ITO (2020) 426 ITR 289/192 DTR 161/315 CTR 849/272 Taxman 272 (SC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Failure to deduct tax at source – Payment exceeding Rs. 20,000 to each truck owners – Contract with a cement factory for transporting cement – Payment made to truck operator/owner amounts to payment made to a sub-contractor – Disallowance is not limited only to amount outstanding and this provision equally applies in relation to expenses that had already been incurred and paid by assessee- S. 40(a)(ia) as introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005 is applicable to and from assessment year 2005-06 – Amendment by Finance Act 2014 is prospective – Disallowance held to be justified [S. 40A(3) , 194C]

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Capital or revenue – Loan taken on mortgage of fixed assets — Amount spent towards stamps, registration fees, lawyer’s fees, etc. for availing loan – Loan neither an asset nor any business advantage nor any enduring benefit to the assessee – Nature of expenditure incurred in raising a loan not dependent upon nature and purpose of loan – Allowable business expenditure. [Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, 10(2)(xv) ]

Sasson J. David Co P. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261/10 CTR 383/1 Taxman 485 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Termination of services of directors and employees to facilitate take over – Retrenchment compensation an allowable deduction — “Wholly and exclusively” does not mean “necessarily” — Benefit to third party irrelevant [Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 S. 10(2)(xv)]

CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254/179 Taxman 326/21 DTR 106/223 CTR 1/213 Taxation 195/13 SCC 1 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Foreign exchange fluctuation loss as on the balance sheet – Allowable as an expenditure. [S. 43A, 145]

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 640/280 CTR 521/126 DTR 233 (SC)

S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Legal expenses incurred for protecting the business of the firm – Held to be allowable business expenditure – Held, finding of fact by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed unless it found to be perverse.

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) (367)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Method of accounting – Entries in the books of account cannot decide whether a receipt is taxable or not or whether expenses are allowable as deduction or not – Courts are compelled to go by the true nature of the receipts and not go by the entries in the books of account – Once a liability to pay has accrued during the assessment year deduction can be allowed even though it had to be discharged at a future date – Even if the assessee disputes the liability to pay sales tax by filing an appeal, once the demand for payment has been received, the said amount can be claimed as a deduction. [ S. 28(1), 37(1) , 145, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 10(2)(xv)]