Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Essentra (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 22 (SN)( Bang) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Capacity utilisation of comparable – Details not available in public domain — Remanded to the TPO to call for information and decide the issue [ S.133(6) ]

Sholayoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v .ITO (2020) 79 ITR 32 (SN) ( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies -Primary agricultural credit Society — Narration in Loan extracts in audit reports is not conclusive- Assessing Officer to examine details of each loan disbursement and determine purpose for which loans disbursed.

Ayalur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 17 (SN) ( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Agricultural purpose or allied activities- Matter remanded to the AO to examine activities of assessee afresh and determine whether activities in compliance with activities of Co-Operative Society functioning under Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969 and to grant deduction. [S.80P(2), Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. ]

Bharat Sons (HUF) v ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 29 ( SN) ( Delhi (Trib)

S. 80IC : Special category States – Electricity consumption – Not producing toll tax receipt does not make the purchases as bogus- Entitle to deduction.

ITO v .Jasmin Mulraj Mehta (2020)79 ITR 9 ( SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Sales not doubted – Addition is restricted to 12.5 percent of non -genuine purchases and less gross profit already declared [ S.37(1) ]

ACIT v .Gopalji K. Dwivedi ( Mum) (Trib) (UR)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Accommodation entries – Pravin Kumar Jain group –Loan confirmation , PAN no, copy of bank account of lender was produced – Submission was filed in pursuance of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act -Deletion of addition is held to be justified [ S.133(6)

R. N. Sahoo v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 20 ( SN) (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Firm — Capital introduction by partners — Addition is held to be not valid – The period during which the lockdown was in force shall stand excluded for the purpose of working out the time limit for pronouncement of orders, as envisaged in rule 34(5) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 .[ S.254(1) , ITAT R.34(5)]

Ajay Narendra Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 8 (SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 57 : Income from other sources – Deductions -Interest expenditure to be set off against interest earned . [ S. 28,(i) 36(1)(iii), 56, 57(iii) ]

Mohanrao Vishwanath Gaikwad v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 42 (SN) ( Pune) (Trib)

S.45: Capital gains —Transfer of property with co-owners —Consideration not received sale consideration -No capital gains could be taxed — Assessing Officer directed to verify non-receipt of consideration [ S. 2(47 )

Anil Dye Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. CIT (2020)79 ITR 30 (SN) (Trib) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 45 : Capital gains – Business income – Expenditure – Taxable as capital gains and not as business income .[ S.2(13) ,28(i) , 48 ]