Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kulumepalya Lenkegowda Shivakumar v. ITO (2024)471 ITR 459 (Karn) (HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-r Principle of natural justice-Order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing is set aside.[S. 142(1), Art.226]

AMNS Khopoli Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 471 ITR 571/ 164 taxmann.com 187 (Bom) (HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Corporate insolvency resolution plan was approved by National Company Law Tribunal on 14-10-2022 which provided that no person shall be entitled to initiate any proceedings against assessee in relation to claims so long such result to a period prior to effective date of resolution plan, i.e., 10-11-2022-Notice issued under section 143(2) to assessee for A.Y. 2022-23 is bad in law and quashed. [S. 142, 143(2), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 14, Art. 226]]

ACIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 273 (Bom) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Fees for technical services-Insertion of explanation to Section 9 By Finance Act, 2010 with effect from 1-6-1976-No disallowance can be made-Interpretation-General principles-Principles of lex non cogit ad impossibilla, and impotentia excust legem.[S.9(1)(vii), 195, 260A

ACIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 273 (Bom)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Construction of school and temples situated in the villages sur-rounding the mining area-business exigencies-Allowable as revenue expenditure-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 1 (Karn) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Iron ore mining was illegal-Transport charges-allowable as revenue expenditure-Allegation that part of expenditure utilised by director-No disallowance can be made in the assessment of company-No substantial question of law. [S. 37(1), Explanation, 260A]

PCIT v. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 481 (Jharkhand) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for warranty-Under contract of sale-Liquidated damages-Allowable as expenditure-Leave travel allowance as per rule and consistency practice-Allowable deduction-Provision of 43B(f) is not applicable. [S.10(15), 43B(f), 260A,]

PCIT v. Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 525 (Guj) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Expenditure on capital stores and spares-replacement of spares of machinery-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Expenses incurred on software for facilitating trading operation is revenue expenditure. [S. 32, 260A]

PCIT v. Gogte Minerals (2024) 471 ITR 410 (Karn) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for pit filling expenses-Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]

Khar Hospitality India Ltd. v. CIT (2024)471 ITR 200 (Cal) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Block of assets-Ready for use-Entitle to full depreciation. [S. 2(11), R. 5(1)]

PCIT(Central) v. Affluence Commodities (P.) Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 252 /161 taxmann.com 476 (Guj) (HC)

S.28(i): Business loss-Penny stocks-Bogus purchases-Genuineness of transactions are proved-No control over on share prices-Losses are deleted. and moreover assessee had no control whatsoever on share prices-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]