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]
Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 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]
Deepa S. Pai (Smt.) v. Dy.CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 148 (Karn.)(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]
Vipin Mehta v. CIT (2020) 270 Taxman 67 (Bom.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Real estate business-Forfeiture of advance-Allowable as business expenditure. [S. 28(i), 45]
PCIT v. Frontiner Land Development P. Ltd. (2020) 270 Taxman 63 (Delhi)(HC)Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 –
S. 24: Notice and attachment of property – Provisions of Act providing for confiscation of properties found to be ‘Benami’ could be applied in respect of transactions carried out prior to 1-11-2016, i.e. date on which amended provision of law by virtue of Amendment Act, 2016 came into force.
Tulsiram v. Asst. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2020) 270 Taxman 309 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 –
S. 2(9): Benami transactions – Where son sought to obtain a declaration of being real and/or benami owner of property on ground that he had given money to his father and mother to purchase property which they got registered in their name but actually property belonged to him, however, no particulars of father and mother standing in any fiduciary capacity to son were disclosed, son would not be entitled to obtain a declaration of being real and/or benami owner of property
Vinay Khanna v. Krishna Kumari Khanna (2020) 270 Taxman 34 (Delhi)(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. Acurus Solutions (P) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 17 (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. Anna Poorna Re-Rolling (P) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 36 (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. Rudra Blades and Edges (P.) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 364 (Mad.)(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. Chemsworth (P) Ltd. (2020) 275 Taxman 408 (Karn.)(HC)