Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PCIT v. Gogte Minerals (2024) 471 ITR 410 (Karn) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for pit filling expenses-Tribunal remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]

Khar Hospitality India Ltd. v. CIT (2024)471 ITR 200 (Cal) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Block of assets-Ready for use-Entitle to full depreciation. [S. 2(11), R. 5(1)]

PCIT(Central) v. Affluence Commodities (P.) Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 252 /161 taxmann.com 476 (Guj) (HC)

S.28(i): Business loss-Penny stocks-Bogus purchases-Genuineness of transactions are proved-No control over on share prices-Losses are deleted. and moreover assessee had no control whatsoever on share prices-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]

PCIT(Central) v. Affluence Commodities (P.) Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 252 /161 taxmann.com 476 (Guj) (HC)

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Disallowance cannot exceed the exempt income-No substantial question of law.[S. 260A]

Myadam Kishan Rao Charitable Trust v. CIT (E) (2024) 471 ITR 334 (Telangana) (HC)

S. 12AB: Procedure for fresh registration-Reasonable opportunity-Violation of principle of natural justice-Alternative remedy-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 12AB(4), Art. 226]

Purnendu Shekhar Sinha v. UOI (2024) 471 ITR 186 /159 taxmann.com 746 (Patna) (HC)

S. 10(10AA) : Leave salary-Employee of the Central Government or State Government-State Bank of India-Retired employee of State Bank of India-Not violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.[Art. 14, 15, 226, Central Civil Services (Leave)Rules 1972]

CIT v. Saeed Mustafa Shervani (2024)471 ITR 777 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Amount received under non-compete agreement is capital receipt.[S. 28(i)]

R. Revathy(2024)470 ITR 69 (Mad) (HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Search and seizure-Jewellery found during search-Revision order-Pendency of assessment proceedings-Pendency of adjudication proceeding is not a bar on prosecution-Petition to quash the prosecution is dismissed. [S. 132, 153C, 263, 271(1)(c), 276C(1), 277, Art. 226]

R. Revathy v. ACIT (2024)470 ITR 56 / 160 taxmann.com 464 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Penalty-Concealment-Doctrine of merger-No merger-Revision order is affirmed-VDI Scheme, 1997. [S. 271(1)(c), 274]

PCIT v. Shark Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd. (2024) 470 ITR 76 /151 taxmann.com 71 (Orissa) (HC) Editorial: Shark Mines and Minerals (P.) Ltd v. PCIT (2014) 117 ITR 67 (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limited scrutiny-Method of accounting-When the Assessing Officer could not have possibly examined issue which is not subject matter limited scrutiny-Commissioner cannot revise the order-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S.40A((3), 145, 260A]