Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Rangnathappa Govindappa Zharkhande v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 290 / 225 TTJ 621 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 45(2) : Capital gains-Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade-Long term capital gains at FMV computed by indexation of Stamp Duty Valuation as on date of sale, rather than entire sale consideration is justified-Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) does not extend to introducing an altogether new source of income.[S. 28(i), 45, 251]

Biplab Adhya. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 643 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 45: Capital gains-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Capital gains-Non-Resident-Cost of acquisition-Short term capital loss-TRC produced-Matter remanded to the file of Assessing Officer-DTAA-India-USA.[S. 9(1)(i), Art. 13]

Sujan Azad Parikh. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 83 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Family arrangement-Transfer of shares under family arrangement-Transfer of shares as per direction of Company Law Board (CLB )-Not transfer-Not liable to capital gains tax.[S. 2(47)]

DCIT v. Srinivasan Devendran. (2023) 198 ITD 495 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive basis-Civil contractor-State Public Works Department relating to road construction-Estimate of net profit at 4 percent on turnover basis is affirmed.[S. 44AB, 144]

Marvelore Mining & Allied Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 629 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-liability of sundry creditor-Capital asset-Capital expenditure-Neither put to use nor claimed depreciation-Addition cannot be made.

Monika Chitrasen Patil. (Mrs.) v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 508 (SMC) (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Purchase of land-Payment of cash on demand by seller-Seller admitted the receipt of cash-Disallowance is deleted. [R.6DD]

C G Housing Company. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 42 (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Real estate developer-Purchase of land as capital asset-Commercially exploited later as stock in trade-Provision of section 40A(3) cannot be applied.[S. 45(2)]

Sunsmart Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 347 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fes for technical services-Sales support service-Located in Dubai-Marketing of products-Train resources of marketing partner to provide pre-sale and after sale product services to customers-Fees for technical services-Liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance is justified.[S.9(1)(vii), 195]

Steller Films (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 682 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business of cinema photographic films, Legal fees-Dispute of film-Allowable as deduction whether the film would release or not would be irrelevant-Abandoned project-Service charges paid to a marketing company related to a film-film which was subsequently abandoned and never released-Allowable as business loss-Interest expenditure-Project abandoned-Capital or revenue-Allowable as deduction[S. 28(i), 36(1)(iii ) Rule 9A]

CLP Wind Farm (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 690 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Premium paid on foreign exchange forward contracts-Amortized as revenue expenditure over life of contract. [Accounting Standard (AS)-11]