Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


DCIT v. B.E.Billimoria & Co Ltd ( 2021 ) BCAJ-January -P 48 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 50 : Capital gains – Depreciable assets – Block of assets – Expenditure incurred on account of stamp duty , registration charges and society transfer fee , as per contractual terms is an allowable expenditure [ S.45, 50(1)(i) ]

Dineshkumar Verma v .ITI ( 2021 ) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P 123 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Once business income is offered on the presumption taxation , separate addition cannot be made as cash credits [ S.68 ]

AnandKumar v .ACIT ( 2021) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P 113 ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Presumptive taxation is not applicable to interest and remuneration received by a partnership firm [ S.28(v), 40(b) ]

Vedanta Ltd v. JCIT ( 2021 ) BCAJ-January P. 58 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision made for site restoration is a contingent liability – Allowable as deduction on the principle of commercial expediency .[ S.145 ]

CIT v. Bicon Ltd ( 2021) The Chamber’s Journal – January – P 115 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Discount in issue of ESOP is an allowable deduction – Contingent liability .[S.4, 143(3) 145, Companies Act , 1956 , S. 2(15A) ]

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle

CIT v. Adhiparasakhi Charitable Medical Educational Cultural Trust ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – December – P. 167 /Trust (2020) 121 taxmann.com 24/ (2021) 2021] 277 Taxman 333 (Mad) (HC) . ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Second application – No bar for filing second application [ S. 245D(1), 245K(2), Art , 226 ]

Kamal Galani v. ACIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 273/ 207 TTJ 1049 (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – HSBC Bank -Black Money- Burden is on revenue to prove that money belongs to the assessee- Mere holding a joint bank account does not mean that the money belongs to the assessee- Addition is deleted [ S.69A ]

CIT v. Sadiq Sheikh ( 2020) 429 ITR 163 / 122 taxmann.com 39 /(2021) 276 Taxman 292 / 197 DTR 191/ 318 CTR 382 ( Bom) (HC) (Goa Bench) /CIT v. Sadia Sheikh (2020) 429 ITR 163 / 122 taxmann.com 39 /(2021)276 Taxman 292/ 197 DTR 191/ 318 CTR 382 (Bom.)(HC) ,www.itatonline.org/Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed , Sadiq Sheikh v. CIT ( 2021) 277 Taxman 594 ( SC)

S. 68 : Cash credits- Source of source – Cash deposited – Brother in law and close friends – How money was transferred from Bangalore to Goa was not satisfactorily explained – – Addition is held to be justified .[ S. 153A ]