Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sarika Vitthal Gund v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 465 / 243 DTR 401 / 38 NYPTTJ 1416 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposits in bank account maintained with a co-operative credit society-Collection agent of the pigmy depositors-Matter remanded to the AO for verification. [S.194H, Form No 26AS]

City Petroleums v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 133 (UO) (Chd) (Trib)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Survey-Unrecorded advances-Cash in hand recorded in the books of account exceed the amount of cash found-Addition is deleted. [S. 133A]

Vimal Coal (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 162 / 242 DTR 249 / 38 NYPTTJ 1104 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Income from undisclosed sources-Alleged bogus purchases-Sales accepted-Input VAT credit and TCS credit-Addition is deleted.[S.68, 69C]

Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 233 / 38 NYPTTJ 1282 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Income from undisclosed sources-Cash deposits in bank-Demonetization-Sales accepted-Books of account is not rejected-Addition is deleted. [S. 68, 115BBE]

Saru Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 441 / 244 DTR 11 / 38 NYPTTJ 1325 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Un explained money-No excess stock-Survey-Merely on the basis of statement no addition can be made.[S.69A, 133A]

Pooja Dipen Joshi v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 34 (UO) (Ahd) (Trib) Ashokkumar C.Joshi v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 34 (UO) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Stamp value-Purchase of property jointly with eight persons-Less than stamp duty value-Addition cannot be made under section 69 of the Act-Provisions in Finance Act, 2013 has clarified that this amendment was not clarificatory in nature-It is categorically mentioned that this amendment was effective from 1st April, 2014 onwards and applicable to Assessment year 2014-15.[56(2)(vii)(b)]

Arun Agarwal v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 422 / 243 DTR 257 / 38 NYPTTJ 1207 (Jodhpur)(Trib)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Sufficient if in the two years, the land is used for agricultural purposes-Invested in capital gains scheme-Entitle to exemption. [S. 45]

Dy.CIT v. Man Prakash Talkies (P) Ltd (2024) 232 TTJ 673 / 38 NYPTTJ 1272 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 45(2) : Capital gains-Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade-Investment-Contribution of land to developer for construction of commercial complex in place of cinema hall-CIT(A) was justified in holding that invocation of S. 45(2) by the AO was not sustainable. [S. 45]

ACIT v. Himanshu Garg (2024) 232 TTJ 472 / 38 NYPTTJ 741 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 45: Capital gains-Business income-Profit from sale of land-Assessee held the entire piece of land for five long years-Improvement made in the plot of land which was barren and uneven by resorting to land tilling, fencing, etc., was only with a view to make the land saleable and further plotting of the said land was also part of the same exercise-Assessable as capital gains and not as business income.[S. 2(13), 28(i)]

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 861 / 38 NYPTTJ 1420 (Mum)(Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Relief material given to Tsunami victims-Not allowable as business expenditure.