S. 48 : Capital gains–Computation-Valuation-Valuation adopted for wealth tax is directed to be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gain-Matter remanded. [S. 45]
K.E.M.I. Kwaja Mohideen. v. ITO (2019) 267 taxman 126 (Mad.) (HC)S. 48 : Capital gains–Computation-Valuation-Valuation adopted for wealth tax is directed to be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gain-Matter remanded. [S. 45]
K.E.M.I. Kwaja Mohideen. v. ITO (2019) 267 taxman 126 (Mad.) (HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Legal settlement expenses– Capacity as manging director of the company-Not allowable as business expenditure of the company in his capacity as an advocate against professional income.
Satinder Kapur. v. ACIT (2019) 110 taxmann.com 24/ 266 Taxman 378 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed; Satinder Kapur v. ACIT (2019) 266 Taxman 377 (SC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Social responsibility-Agreement with State Government to construct houses for poor people affected by floods-Held to be allowable on commercial expediency.
Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v JCIT (2019) 418 ITR 410 / 310 CTR 617 / 182 DTR 57/( 2020) 269 Taxman 170 (Karn.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expenditure on higher education of daughter of Director-Higher education is not related to business of the appellant company–Not allowable as deduction.
JBM Industries Ltd v. DCIT (2019) 418 ITR 502/ 182 DTR 457 / 267 Taxman 411 (Delhi) (HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Insurance premium on purchase of new car-Held to be revenue expenditure.
PCIT v. Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Commission paid to directors-Allowed in earlier years-Principle of consistency is followed– Appeal of revenue is dismissed.
PCIT v. Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Construction business– Expenditure incurred subsequent sale of building–Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 145]
CIT v. Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 taxman 118/311 CTR 815 / 184 DTR 56 (Ker.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Non-compete fee-Agreement was only for 18 months-Allowable as revenue expenditure.
CIT v. Computer Age Management Services (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 taxman 146 (Mad.) (HC)S. 32 : Depreciation-leased assets–Entitle to depreciation–Less had admitted that the transaction were merely paper transaction – Question of fact. [S. 260A]
PCIT v. Ushdev International Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 22 / 266 Taxman 372 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Ushdev International Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 371 (SC)/ (2019) 416 ITR 128 (St.)(SC) .S. 32 : Depreciation–Residential flats–Accommodation of employees-Entitle for higher rate of depreciation.
CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 406 /(2020) 190 DTR 158(Mad.)(HC)