Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Aspect Research & Management P. Ltd v. ITO ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – June -P 81 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- Repair and renovation of leased premises – Revenue expenditure – Power of CIT (A) – Cannot travel beyond the direction of the ITAT order [ S.250, 254(1)]

Multitute Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – March – P .123 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – One time payment of annual lease rent is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure

DCIT v. Repco Home Finance Pvt Ltd ( 2020) 83 ITR 530 / 183 ITD 782 / 117 taxmmann.com 233 ( Chennai) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(viii) : Eligible business – Business of providing long term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India – AO is directed to examine the issue [ S.254(1)

Osho Developers v .ACIT ( 2020) BCAJ-December -P 43/ www.itatonline.org ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 22 : Income from house property –Un sold flat held as stock in trade- Annual value Rental income assessable as business income- [ S.28(i)]

Nitesh Munje v .ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 14 (SN) (Indore ) (Trib)

S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 –Unexplained cash —Not giving any plausible reply to satisfy search team or Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings — Levy of penalty is held to be justified.

Rashid K. Nurani v ITO (2020) 78 ITR 26 (SN) ( Ahd) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Failure to disclose in respect of income with respect to two bank accounts – Mistake of consultant – Omission neither deliberate nor contumacious in conscious disregard to his obligation — Bona fide mistake- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified . [ S. 44AD,139, 143(2) ]

Deem Roll-Tech Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 45 (SN) ( Ahd) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of interest -Mere wrong claim not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income.

Suresh Mutha v .ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 75 (SN) ( Chennai) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices – Regular assessment details were filed – Not ex prate best judgment – Penalty is held to be not justified [ S .142(1), 274 ]

SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 78 ITR 1 ( SN) ( Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Record – Provision for warranty- Assessing Officer forming proper opinion after making due enquiries and verification-Revision not valid. [ S. 37(1),145 ]

AVV Enterprises P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 60 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S.234E: Fee-Default in furnishing the statements- Provision Prospective — No demand could be made for Assessment Years for periods prior to 1-6-2015 [ S.200A(1)( c ) ]