Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PTL Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 260 / 326 CTR 858 / 286 Taxman 564 (SC) Editorial : Decision in PTL Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 365 / (2022) 212 DTR 404 / 326 CTR 282/ 286 Taxman 169 (Ker.)(HC) affirmed.

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Fines-Penalty-Not compensatory in nature-Not allowable as deduction. [Kerala General Sales tax Act, 1963, S. 45A]

Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 250 / 212 DTR 269/287 Taxman 155 (SC) Editorial: Decision in CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 672 (Kran.)(HC) reversed.

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Leasing business-Foreign currency loan-Finance Indian enterprises in acquisition of Plant, Machinery and equipment-Enterprises In Acquisition of Plant, Machinery And Equipment-Loss due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rates-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 32, R.115]

Wipro Finance Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 250 / 212 DTR 269 (SC) Editorial : Decision in CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 672 (Kran.)(HC) reversed.

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Leasing business-Foreign currency loan-Finance Indian enterprises in acquisition of Plant, Machinery and equipment-Enterprises In Acquisition of Plant, Machinery And Equipment-Loss due to fluctuation in foreign exchange rates-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 32, R.115]

PTL Enterprises Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 260 / 326 CTR 858 / 286 Taxman 564 (SC) Editorial: Decision in PTL Enterprises Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 365/(2022) 212 DTR 404 / 326 CTR 282/ 286 Taxman 169 (Ker)(HC) affirmed.

S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from lease-Exploitation of property and not exploitation of business assets-Assessable as income from other sources-Quality loss-No business carried on-Not allowable as deduction. [S. 2(14), 56]

CIT(E) v. Hamdard National Foundation (India) (2022) 443 ITR 348 / 212 DTR 38 / 325 CTR 626 / 286 Taxman 441 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Benefit of specified persons-Valuation of rent-Burden to prove inadequacy of rent is on Department-Rent received exceeded valuation adopted by Municipal Corporation for purpose of levying house tax-Merely relying upon the opinion as to rent from property broker firms and websites additions cannot be made-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-Res Judicata-Rule of consistency is followed. [S. 11, 12, 13(2)(b), 13(3)]

Creative Museum Designers v. ITO(E) (2022) 443 ITR 173 / 211 DTR 361 / 326 CTR 122 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Education-Dissemination of knowledge through Museum or Science Parks constitutes education-Entitled to exemption. [S. 2(15), Companies Act, 1956, S. 25]

Prajatantra Prachar Samity v. CIT (2022) 443 ITR 15 / 213 DTR 440 / 326 CTR 569 / 287 Taxman 667 (SC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Method of accounting-Tribunal calling for information and affidavit filed in response by assessee-Affidavit not referred to by Tribunal or by High Court-Orders of Tribunal and High Court set aside and matters remitted to Tribunal for consideration afresh. [S. 254(1), 256(2), 260A]

CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 443 ITR 34 / 211 DTR 305 / 325 CTR 507/ 286 Taxman 221 (SC) Editorial : Decision in CIT v. Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (No. 1) (2020) 429 ITR 207 (Bom)(HC) affirmed.

S. 10B: Export oriented undertakings-Reconstruction-New unit formed in 1998 fully independent with higher production capacity, located at separate plot-New undertaking-Entitled to exemption.

Adjudicating Authority v. Anuttam Academic Institutions (2022) 442 ITR 509 / 286 Taxman 400(Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge reversed ; Advance Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. v. Adjudicating Authority (2022)442 ITR 477 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 5 : Benami Transaction Limitation-Order passed within time limit-Delay in communication-Order not barred by limitation-Alternative remedy-Writ is not maintainable.[S.24(1),24(3), 24(5), 26(3), 26(7), 46, 114 Art, 226]

Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v. CBDT (2022) 442 ITR 31 / 212 DTR 313 / 326 CTR 34 / 286 Taxman 95 (SC) Editorial : Order of Gujarat High Court is modified, Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta v. CBDT (2021) 432 ITR 91 /199 DTR 81/ 319 CTR 389 / 280 Taxman 278 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 191 : Tax paid under the Scheme shall not be refunded-Paid two instalments- Default in paying final instalment- Seeking extension of time to pay third instalment-Request rejected by High Court-Direction that assessee be given benefit of amounts deposited towards first two instalments while reckoning tax liability of assessee after revised assessment. [S. 183, 185, Art. 226]