Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Nageswara Rao Viswanadha. v. ACIT (2024) 205 ITD 440 (Vishakha) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Agreement to sell properties on 14-8-2014 and received part consideration of certain amount-Agreement to sell those properties were registered on 30-12-2015, provisions of section 50C adopting value for stamp duty purposes as on date of sale deed i.e. 30-12-2015 could not be applied but value as on date of agreement/date of receipt of advance i.e. 14-8-2014 is to be applied.[S. 45]

Baba Export House. v. ACIT (2024) 205 ITD 201 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Fair market value-Registered Valuer valued the property at less than sale consideration-Sale consideration and DVO is less than Stamp Valuation Authority-Deeming provision cannot be applied-Addition is deleted. [S. 45]

Piramal Enterprises Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 205 ITD 636 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Cost of acquisition-Fair market value determined by Government valuer-Assessing Officer has no right to replace Government approved valuer’s opinion with his own opinion. [S. 45, 50A 55A]

Joginder Singh v. ACIT (2024) 205 ITD 600 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Sale of shop-Cost of improvement-Construction cost of concrete bridge on culvert in front of shop-Allowable as deduction while computing capital gains. [S. 45]

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) (2024) 205 ITD 562 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 44BBA : Air craft-Non-residents-Computation-Air craft-Service tax-Statutory levy-it did not form part of receipts of assessee for purpose of section 44BBA.[S. 44BBBA(1)]

Shubh Karan Mahnot v. ITO (2024) 205 ITD 246 (Raipur)(Trib)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Rent for four godowns in cash-Less than Rs 10,000 per day per person-No disallowance can be made-Matter remanded for verification-Electricity charges in cash to a State Government undertaking-Covered by exception carved out in rule 6DD(b)-No disallowance can be made. [R.6DD(b)]

Piramal Enterprises Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 205 ITD 636 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Royalty-Disallowance at rate of 0.2 percent of turnover is deleted-25% of other fees on ad-hoc basis-Order of CIT (A) directing Assessing Officer to allow payments after verifying and comparing similar payments made to other group companies is affirmed.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 205 ITD 680 (Mum)(Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Trip for dealers-Expenditure incurred by assessee under its trip scheme for its dealer for purpose of expanding assessee’s business by encouraging dealers and distributors to achieve a specific target of purchase being closely linked to assessee’s business activity is allowable expenditure.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 205 ITD 680 (Mum)(Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Decorative paint business-Capital or revenue-Extension of existing business-Revenue expenditure.

Asian Paints Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 205 ITD 680 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-New line of business-Capital or revenue-Furniture space, home improvement, kitchen space, bathroom space and acquisition of paints manufacturing company in Ethiopia being completely a new line of business and not an extension of existing business of assessee, is capital in nature.