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. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- Repair and renovation of leased premises – Revenue expenditure – Power of CIT (A) – Cannot travel beyond the direction of the ITAT order [ S.250, 254(1)]
Aspect Research & Management P. Ltd v. ITO ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – June -P 81 (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – One time payment of annual lease rent is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure
Multitute Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – March – P .123 ( Delhi) (Trib)
S. 36(1)(viii) : Eligible business – Business of providing long term finance for construction or purchase of houses in India – AO is directed to examine the issue [ S.254(1)
DCIT v. Repco Home Finance Pvt Ltd ( 2020) 83 ITR 530 / 183 ITD 782 / 117 taxmmann.com 233 ( Chennai) (Trib)
S. 22 : Income from house property –Un sold flat held as stock in trade- Annual value Rental income assessable as business income- [ S.28(i)]
Osho Developers v .ACIT ( 2020) BCAJ-December -P 43/ www.itatonline.org ( Mum) (Trib)
S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 –Unexplained cash —Not giving any plausible reply to satisfy search team or Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings — Levy of penalty is held to be justified.
Nitesh Munje v .ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 14 (SN) (Indore ) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Failure to disclose in respect of income with respect to two bank accounts – Mistake of consultant – Omission neither deliberate nor contumacious in conscious disregard to his obligation — Bona fide mistake- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified . [ S. 44AD,139, 143(2) ]
Rashid K. Nurani v ITO (2020) 78 ITR 26 (SN) ( Ahd) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Disallowance of interest -Mere wrong claim not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income.
Deem Roll-Tech Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 45 (SN) ( Ahd) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices – Regular assessment details were filed – Not ex prate best judgment – Penalty is held to be not justified [ S .142(1), 274 ]
Suresh Mutha v .ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 75 (SN) ( Chennai) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Record – Provision for warranty- Assessing Officer forming proper opinion after making due enquiries and verification-Revision not valid. [ S. 37(1),145 ]
SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 78 ITR 1 ( SN) ( Chennai) (Trib)
S.234E: Fee-Default in furnishing the statements- Provision Prospective — No demand could be made for Assessment Years for periods prior to 1-6-2015 [ S.200A(1)( c ) ]
AVV Enterprises P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 60 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)