Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 528 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Annasaheb Patil Mathadi Kamgar Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Ltd (Bom)(HC) (ITA No. 1574 of 2017 dt 9-1 2020 ), affirmed

S. 80P : Co-operative societies-Co-operative Bank-Entitled to deduction.[S.80P(2)(i), 80P(2)(d)]

Magnum International Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v.CIT (2023)454 ITR 141/ 293 Taxman 305 / 332 CTR 206/ 224 DTR 385 (SC) Editorial: Magnum International Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. v.CIT (Delhi)(HC) (ITA Nos. 1141/1149 /1150/ 1560 of 2006 dt. 29-10-2019 ).Applying the substantial and amended provision of section 80HHC (3) was unsustainable.

S. 80HHC : Export business–Amendment in 1991 with Effect from 1-4-1992 is prospective-Sale of shares-Business income-to be included in total turnover-Interest earned from deposit of surplus funds in banks–Income from other sources”-to be excluded in computation of deduction. [S. 56, 80HHC(3)]

CIT v. KBD Sugars and Distilleries Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 800 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. KBD Sugars and Distilleries Ltd (2022) 20 ITR-OL-631 (Kran)(HC) is affirmed.

S. 72A : Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Amalgamation-Demerger-Sale of windmills-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. (2(19aa), 32, 72A(4)]

ACIT v. Kantilal Exports (2023)454 ITR 112/ 293 Taxman 531/ 332 CTR 610/ 225 DTR 357 (SC) Editorial : M. Kantilal Exports v. ACIT (2011) 330 ITR 185 (Guj)(HC), reversed. Miscellaneous application is rejected , ACIT v. Kantilal Exports Surat (2024) 300 Taxman 99 (SC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search and seizure-Duplicate account-Yield in various years-Finding reversed relying on statement-Order of Tribunal is restored. [S. 132, 143(3)]

D. N. Singh v. CIT (2023)454 ITR 595/ 293 Taxman 550/ 332 CTR 665 / 226 DTR 17 (SC) Editorial : Decisions in, D. N. Singh v. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 304 (Pat)(HC), D. N. Singh v. CIT (2018) 504 ITR 507 (Pat)(HC), reversed.

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Unexplained money-Possession of goods as bailee for carriage of goods-Does not render owner of gods or deemed to be owner-Bitumen is not a valuable article in context of section 69A-Assessee was mere carrier supplying goods (Bitumen) from consignor i.e. oil marketing companies to consignee i.e. road construction department, he could not be said to be owner for purpose of section 69A of the Act-Other Valuable article-Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes-Ejusdem Generis-Noscitur A Sociis-To be construed Ejusdem Generis with money, bullion or jewellery-Additions deleted. [S. 69A,Carriage by Road Act, 2017, S 15,Contract Act, 1872, S. 148, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 54, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 405, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, S. 27, 39, Circular No. 20 of 1964, dated 7-7-19964 instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 ]

Rupal Jain v. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 813 / 294 Taxman 261 (SC) Editorial : Rupal Jain v. CIT (All)(HC) (ITA No. 83 of 2022 dt. 17-11-2022)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Failed to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction-SLP of assessee dismissed.[Art. 136]

PCIT v. Durgapur Projects Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 367/ 333 CTR 158/ 227 DTR 35 (Cal)(HC)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Compulsory acquisition of land and buildings-S.2(47), 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, The Indian Registration Act, 1908, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S.96]

PCIT v. R. F. Nangrani HUF (2023)454 ITR 426/ 293 Taxman 511/ 332 CTR 510/ 225 DTR 217 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court is set aside and remanded, CIT v. R. F. Nangrani HUF (Bom)(HC) (ITA No. 33 of 2016 dt 18-4 2018)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Retirement-Firm-Excess of amount due-Goodwill-No discussion in the judgement-Matter remanded to the High court for reconsideration.

PCIT v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 801 / 293 Taxman 426 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd(2022) 449 ITR 605 (P&H) (HC), affirmed.

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Electricity duty-A Licensee-An agency to collect electricity duty from consumers and to pay it to State Government-Disallowance not attracted-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]

PCIT v. Landis GYR(2023) 454 ITR 462 (Cal)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for warranty-Depreciation on intellectual property. [S. 32, 145(2), 260A]