Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sheetal Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 270 Taxman 316 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Housing project-Completion certificate issued within four years from date of obtaining permission-Re assessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 80IB(10), 148 Art. 226]

Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Industrial building-Failure to produce confirmation-Expenses in relation to cost of construction of gala is held to be not allowable as deduction. [S. 45, 260A]

Deepa S. Pai (Smt.) v. Dy.CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 148 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 45(2) : Capital gains-Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade-Shares as investment-Valued the stock at lower of cost-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 45]

Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Business income-Dealing in land-Industrial building-Outright purchase and sale-Assessable as short term capital gains and not as business income-Question of fact. [S. 28(i), 260A]

PCIT v. Frontiner Land Development P. Ltd. (2020) 270 Taxman 63 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Real estate business-Forfeiture of advance-Allowable as business expenditure. [S. 28(i), 45]

CIT v. Acurus Solutions (P) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 17 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Audit objection-Dismissal of appeal on account of below monetary limit is held to be not valid. [S. 254(1)]

CIT v. Anna Poorna Re-Rolling (P) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 36 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Lower than monetary limit fixed by Circular-Appeal was less than monetary limit of Rs. 10 lakhs fixed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015, dated 10-12-2015.

CIT v. Rudra Blades and Edges (P.) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 364 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Lower than monetary limit fixed by Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11-7-2018-Appeal was same was dismissed. [S. 80IB(10), 271(1)(c)]

CIT v. Chemsworth (P) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 408 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-AO had taken a plausible view-Merely on ground that enquiry conducted by AO was inadequate revision is held to be not valid. [S. 14A]

CIT v. Rajmahal Silk (2020) 275 Taxman 150 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Transportation charges-cryptic order-Matter remanded. [S. 37 (1)]