Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


ACIT v. Siva Jyothi Palam. (2024) 209 ITD 352/232 TTJ 514 /243 DTR 265 (Visakha)(Trib.)

S.54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Sale of vacant land-Purchase of house property-Time limit-Delay in registration-Beyond prescribed time limit of 24 months-Denial of exemption is not valid.[S.45]

Rajan Arputharaj Vincent Naveen. v. ACIT (2024) 209 ITD 114 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-declared income under head business or profession-No declaration of capital gains-Denial of exemption by the AO, which is up held by the CIT(A) is affirmed. [S. 28(i), 54F, 143(1)]

Girdharlal Brothers. v. Addl. CIT (2024) 209 ITD 285 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Transfer of tenancy rights-Permanent alternate accommodation-Provisions of section 50C would not apply in case of transfer of tenancy rights. [S. 45(1)]

DCIT v. Algonomy Software (P.) Ltd. (2024) 209 ITD 564 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fes for technical services-Sales commission-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-USA.[S. 195, Art. 12]

DCIT v. Stylam Industries Ltd. (2024) 209 ITD 75 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Commission-Export commission to non-residents agents for services rendered outside India is not liable for withholding tax and, therefore, no disallowance could be made-7 of OECD model convention. [S. 9(1)(i), 195]

Aarav Fragrances and Flavors (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 209 ITD 556 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Part of bad debt-Capital expenditure-Alternative claim-Matter remanded to remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to verify and consider said claim-Disallowance on staff welfare, marketing, conveyance, travel, and miscellaneous expenses is restricted to 10%. [S.36(2)]

DCIT v. Magnum Power Generation Ltd. (2024) 209 ITD 241 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Depreciation-Temporarily suspension of business-Dormant for some times-Eligible to claim revenue expenditure and depreciation of fixed assets. [S. 32]

International Seaport Dredging (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 209 ITD 515 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Percentage of completion method (POCM)-Provision for expected contract losses-Supported by scientific basis and AS-7-Allowable as deduction and no addition can be made to book profit. [S.115JB, 145]

DCIT v. Stylam Industries Ltd. (2024) 209 ITD 75 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-VAT penalty is compensatory in nature and would be allowable as deduction.

Rotomag Motors And Controls (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 209 ITD 329 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Warranty provision-Provision is calculated based on DCF method in a scientifically sound and consistent method which complied with Accounting Standard 29 (AS-29)-Allowable as deduction.[S. 145]