This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Not subjected to MAT adjustment-More non-interest bearing funds-No disallowance can be made-Only exempt income yielding investments have to be taken into consideration whilst computing administrative expenses. [S. 11JB, R. 8D(2)(iii)]
Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. DCIT (2021)189 ITD 183 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Purpose for which the investment was made is not relevant for disallowance. [R. 8D]
DLF Universal Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 88 ITR 33 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Application of income outside India-Rejection of application is held to be not justified. [S. 11(1)(c), 12]
Sarbat The Bhala Gurmat Mission Charitable Trust v. CIT (2021) 189 ITD 353 (Chd.)(Trib.)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Principle of consistency-Exemption was allowed. [S. 2(15), 12A]
Dy. CIT(E) v. Paramount Charity Trust (2021) 88 ITR 26 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Depreciation-Carry forward of deficit-Depreciation allowed.[12A, 32, 70, 74]
Dy. CIT(E) v. Nav Nirman Sewa Samiti (2021) 88 ITR 4 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 10(2A) : Share income of partner- Firm-Share of profits to partner of firm-Addition is held to be not justified.
S. Seethalakshmi v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 684 (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 10(1) : Agricultural income-Agricultural land-Sold to non-agriculturist-Not capital asset-Not liable to be assessed as capital gains-Sold agricultural land and purchased another agricultural land and took possession-Entitle to deduction. [S. 2(14), 45, 54B]
Suresh Dhulabhai Patel v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 374 / 211 TTJ 41 (UO) (Surat)(Trib.)
S. 276C: Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Bogus purchase – Estimate of 12.5 per cent of Bogus Purchase upheld by CIT(A) and ITAT – No penalty was levied -High Court held that prima facie ingredients of offenses are satisfied – Assessee has wilfully and intentionally evaded his tax liability- Writ petition to quash the prosecution was dismissed . [S. 148, 279(1), Art. 226 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482 ]
Nayan Jayantilal Balu v. UOI (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org
S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Manufacture of high end jewellery-Not maintained documents as required due to practical difficulties-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 92D(3), Rule 10D(3)]
DCIT v. Kama Schachter Jewellery (P.) Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 21 / 213 TTJ 537/ 205 DTR 180 (Mum.)(Trib.)