Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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.

Nayara Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 353 / 244 DTR 89/ 38 NYPTTJ 1162 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Interest is not charged on inter-corporate deposits made with group companies-No evidence of commercial expediency-Disallowance is justified.

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

S. 32: Depreciation-Written down value-Non-receipt of insurance claim of amalgamating company-Mere claim-Claim actually allowed only to be considered-Depreciation is directed to allow on enhanced amount-State capital investment subsidy-Not required to be deducted from the WDV for computing the depreciation. [S. 43(6)(c, 43(1), Explanation 10.]

Samsung R&D Institute India-Bangalore (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2024) 232 TTJ 522 / 38 NYPTTJ 1392 (Bang)(Trib)

S. 28(iv) : Business income-Value of any benefit or perquisites-Converted in to money or not-Assets received free of cost from AEs located outside India-MAP-Price is already agreed under MAP-Therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition under S. 28(iv).

ACIT v. Eastman Exports Global Clothing (P) Ltd. (2024) 232 TTJ 121 / 38 NYPTTJ 1190 (Chennai)(Trib)

S. 28(iiib) : Business income-Cash assistance-Capital or revenue-Subsidy or grant or cash incentives or duty drawback or waiver or concession or reimbursement Incentive received from Government for exploring new export market-MEIS Scheme under Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-Though the said amounts are brought into P&L a/c and claimed as exempt in the return of income, the said treatment in the books of accounts by itself cannot be determinative of its taxability-Benefit under Foreign Trade Policy, 2015 being MEIS scrips does not fall within the meaning of cash assistance under s. 28(iiib)-Capital receipt, not chargeable to tax. [S. 2(24)(xviii), 4]