Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CIT v. Vishnu Prakash Sharma (2022) 440 ITR 324 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Excess stock during search-Books of account was incomplete-Retraction of statement-Deletion of addition was held to be justified [S. 132, 132(4)]

PCIT v. Akzo Noble India Limited (No. 2) (2022) 440 ITR 190 / 286 Taxman 251 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 50B : Capital gains-Slump sale-Depreciable assets-Block of assets-Sale of undertaking-Sale consideration is not liable to be taxed as short term capital gains. [S. 2(11),2(42C) 45, 50]

PCIT v. Akzo Noble India Limited (No. 1) (2022) 440 ITR 185 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 50B : Capital gains-Slump sale-Entire business of the undertaking was transferred to subsidiary-Order of Tribunal assessing the amount as slump sale is affirmed. [S. 2(11), 2(42C), 45, 50]

Ilahia Trust v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 90 / 209 DTR 355 / 325 CTR 337 / 285 Taxman 312 (Ker.)(HC).Editorial : SLP dismissed as withdrawn , Ilahia Trust v. CIT [2023] 291 Taxman 200 (SC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payment to contractor without deduction of tax deduction at source-Disallowance is held to be proper. [S. 12AA, 13(1)(c), 234A, 234C]

D. M. Sankar v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 209 / 284 Taxman 560 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Disallowance of part of expenditure-Based on facts-No question of law. [S. 260A]

CIT v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 75/ 212 DTR 84/ 328 CTR 676 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Method of accounting-Incentive scheme announced to distributors and dealers-Liability arises upon announcement-Not a contingent-Ascertained liability-Allowable as deduction. [S. 145]

PCIT v. Akzo Noble India Limited (No. 2) (2022) 440 ITR 190/ 286 Taxman 251 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision on account of leave encashment-Not contingent liability-Allowable as deduction.

CIT v. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 75/ 212 DTR 84/ 328 CTR 676 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Unity control and management-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.

CIT v. Ceebros Hotels P. Ltd. (2022) 440 ITR 200/ 284 Taxman 205 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Borrowed money was used for the purpose of business-Expansion of business-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.

CIT v. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd (2022) 440 ITR 343 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from house property-Income from other sources-Rental income from Mall should be considered as business. [S. 22, 56]