Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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

S.32 : Depreciation – Prior to 1.4.1999 – Intangible assets – Acquisition of trademarks, copyright and know-how of erstwhile firm – Held, intellectual property rights such as trademarks, copyrights and know-how constitute “plant” for purposes of depreciation – The department is not entitled to rewrite the terms of a commercial agreement. [S. 35A, 35AB, 43(3)]

Laxman Nainani v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 1 /( 2021 ) 210 TTJ 562 / 204 DTR 97 ( Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271AAB:Peanlty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012- Surrender of income – Recording of specific charge is mandatory – Penalty levied was quashed . [ S.153A ]

UMG Properties P. Ltd. v .ACIT (2020)80 ITR 448 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Loan against property -Interest capitalized – Inadvertently claimed in the return as deduction – Levy of penalty is not valid .

Laxman Nainani v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 1 / ( 2021 ) 210 TTJ 562 / 204 DTR 97 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not specifying a specific charge – Levy of penalty is not valid .[ S.69B]

Hindon Forge P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 545 (Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Recording of satisfaction-Failure to state specific charge of penalty —Penalty deleted . [ S.274 ]

Dy. CIT v. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 452( Mum) (Trib)

S.271(1) ( c): Penalty — Concealment of income —Addition on basis of which penalty levied was deleted – Penalty will not survive .

Arrow Digital P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 360 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Gratuity and exhibition expenses – Genuineness of expenses not doubted -Failure to deduct tax at source- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v PCIT (2020) 80 ITR 410 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Interest on Arbitration Award reduced while computing taxable income — Offering income in the year of receipts – Revision is held to be not valid [ S.4, 145 ]

G. Hemalatha (Smt.) v .ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 456 (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- No case made out for stay of demand – Irreparable loss and financial difficulties — Stay petition dismissed [ S.254(1)]

K. Srikanth v .ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 272 / 195 DTR 17/206 TTJ 273 ( Chennai ) (Trib)

S.254(1): Appellate Tribunal – Orders – Period of the first national lock-down from March 25, 2020 to April 19, 2020, when offices were not allowed to be physically opened, was excluded the period within which this order was pronounced was within 90 days.