Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Kawaljit Singh v. ACIT (2024) 204 ITD 307 (Chd)( Trib)

S.153A: assessment – Search – Less than 50 lakhs – Assessment beyond six years is bad in law . [ S.69, 132 ]

ITO v. Rekhchand Jain (2024) 204 ITD 333 ( Raipur)( Trib)

S.54B: Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes –Investment in new agricultural land – Loan was repaid after sale consideration was received – Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed – Cash credits – Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer . [ S. 45 ]

Eaton Power Quality (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 323/230 TTJ 23 (UO) ( Chennai) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure –Non compete fee –Capital expenditure – Entitle to depreciation – Provision for litigation and taxation matter – Matter remanded .[S.32]

Canara Bank v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 358 ( Bang )(Trib)

S. 36(1)(viia) :Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts – Banks -Schedule bank –Average advances of rural branches – Advances outstanding as well as fresh advances are to be considered .

Canara Bank v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 358 ( Bang )(Trib)

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt –Banks – Non -Rural branches – Amounts written off – Allowable as deduction.

Canara Bank v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 358 ( Bang )(Trib)

S.14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – No expenditure is incurred for earning dividend income – Disallowance is not justified . [ R. 8D ]

Hiten Tulshibhai Engineer v. ITO (2024) 204 ITD 98 (Ahd)( Trib)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset – Agricultural land –Sale of agricultural land – Purchaser changed the use for commercial purposes – Not assessable as capital gains . [Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ( Amendment ) Act , 1997 ( GT & All) S.63AA,65B]

PCIT v. Shhukla Dairy Pvt Ltd (2023) 457 ITR 145 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash in excess of Rs.20000-Proper inquiry was conducted-Revision is held to be not valid.[S.40(a)(ia), 40A(3), R.6DD]

CIT (LTU). v Canara Bank (2023)457 ITR 556 (Karn)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Order of assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3)]

CIT v. Manoj Murarka (2023)457 ITR 600/ 330 CTR 613/ 156 taxmann.com 190(Cal)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay in filing appeal-Delay was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.50000-Cost was not paid-Order condoning the delay is recalled.