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–Construction business- Accounting Standard-2- Justified in debiting all expenses to work-in-progress except expenses related to administration, selling, marketing, etc. [S. 145]
Macrotech Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 530 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Asset management company– Date of approval given by SEBI was to be regarded as date on which assessee set up its business and was ready to commence said business- Expenses incurred for purpose of business after said date of approval were eligible for deduction. [S. 3, Regulation 21 of the SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996]
DCIT v. PPFAS Asset Management (P.) Ltd. (2019) 176 ITD 541 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 12AA : Procedure for registration–Trust or institution- Possibility of misuse of donations-Approval u/s 80G cannot be denied. [S. 80G ]
Adesh Foundation (Regd.) v. CIT (2019) 176 ITD 506/199 TTJ 105/ 177 DTR 153 (Asr.)(Trib.)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission–Full and true disclosure-Surrender of income in the course of search- Retraction after two years- Application for settlement showing undisclosed income much lower figure–Report of revenue was not considered- Settlement Commission determining the income higher than the disclosed income–Order of Settlement Commission was quashed. [S. 132(4), 245C, 245D(4)]
CIT v. Om Prakash Jakhotia (2019) 414 ITR 176/ 179 DTR 1 / 309 CTR 499/ 265 Taxman 110 (Delhi)(HC)/ Editorial: SLP of assessee is dsmissed, Om Prakash Jakhotia v. PCT (2019) 418 TR 18 (St) (SC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission–Restoration of matter to Settlement Commission by High Court-Computation of period of 18 months-Period taken by assessee in pursuing remedy before Court and period during which order stayed to be excluded. [S. 245D(4A)]
Akshar Builders. V. PCIT (2019) 414 ITR 34 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Non speaking order-Garnishe notices to Banks was quashed and attachment of Bank account was lifted. [S. 226(3)]
Oren Hydrocarbons Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 52 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Allotment of more than one unit to members of same family-Allottees Later removing partitions and combining two flats into one-No breach of condition that each unit should not be of more than 1000 Sq. Ft. — Entitled to deduction.
PCIT v. Kores India Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 47/ (2020) 274 Taxman 337 (Bom.) (HC)
S. 69 : Income form undisclosed-Bogus purchases-The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases-The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases. [S. 251]
V. R. Enterprises v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib), www.itatonline.org