Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Vamsee Krishna Kundurthi v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 68 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Salary-Tax Residency certificate-Salary income from Australia cannot be taxed in India-DTAA-India-Australia. [S. 5(2), 9(1)(1), 10, Art. 15]

DCIT v. Zydus Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (2021) 190 ITD 652 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 80IAB : Undertaking-Development of Special Economic Zone-Developer-Operation and maintenance-Entitle to deduction.

Shirmoni Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. CIT (2021) 190 ITD 888 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 80G : Donation-Statutory body created under Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925-Religious purposes-Engaged in numerous charitable activities like running School, colleges, Medical colleges, Hospitals, Library, Sarai, Lunger, flood relief camps etc.-Entitle to benefit under section 80G(5)(iii) of the Act. [S. 80G(5)(iii)]

Shiv Kumar Jatia v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 181 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 74 : Losses-Capital gains-Security transaction tax-Loss from sale of long term capital asset-Allowed to be carried forward for set off though long term capital asset is exempt. [S. 10 (38), 45]

Arpit Goel v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 42 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash credits-Amounts deposited in the bank-Cash withdrawal and redeposit-Sale of computer parts-Explanation was not satisfactory-Addition was held to be justified-Addition on account of salary was held to be not justified. [S. 68]

Jaswantlal J. Shah. v. ACIT (2021) 190 ITD 157 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Addition was restricted to 6% of alleged bogus purchases. [S. 133(6)]

JCIT v. Narayana Reddy Vakati (2021) 190 ITD 466 / 88 ITR 23 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Search and seizure-Incriminating materials belongs to company-Addition in the assessment of the director was deleted. [S. 132]

Ashish Bhardwaj. v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 867 (SMC) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Immoveable property-Purchase of property jointly with wife-Stamp valuation-Paid by wife-Addition was held to be not justified. [S. 148]

ITO v. Atmiya Infrastructure. (2021) 190 ITD 11 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Purchase of immoveable property-Source of investment is not doubted-Addition is held to be not valid.

Didar Singh v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 664 / 205 DTR 249 / 213 TTJ 473 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Benami transaction-Purchased land for 1.59 crores and sold for Rs.1.62 crores-Land was transferred for taking care-Addition was deleted-Assessing Officer directed to make in depth investigation. [S. 147, 148]