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. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Ownership of land-Housing complex was situated on a piece of land which was occupied by Co-operative Housing Society under a long term lease- Exemption cannot be denied in respect of sale of flat in a society. [S. 45]
PCIT v. Rahul Uday Tuljapurkar (2019) 264 Taxman 36/ 180 DTR 132/ 310 CTR 800 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Unabsorbed depreciation-Set off of- Benefit of carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation for assessment year 1997-98 is allowed against income of assessment year 2005-06. [S. 32(2)]
PCIT v. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (2019) 106 taxmann.com 131 / 264 Taxman 20 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 19 (SC)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Interest free funds were utilized for making exempt investment-No disallowance can be made.[R. 8D].
PCIT v. Ashok Apparels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 50/(2020)423 ITR 412 (Bom.) (HC)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Golf facilities to its members for promotion of sport-No element of activity of being in nature of trade, commerce or business-Interest earned from banks or financial institutions on investment of surplus funds arising from charitable activities was exempted from tax. [S. 2(15)]
CIT v. Bombay Presidency Gold Club Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 55/ 182 DTR 454/ 311 CTR 578 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Educational Institution-Res judicata-Denial of exemption is held to be not justified. [S. 10(23C)(vi), 12AA]
CIT v. Takshila Education Society (2019) 264 Taxman 72/ 178 DTR 182 (Patna)(HC)
S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited–Audit report is made available before completion of assessment–No loss to revenue–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 44AB]
Johns Biwheelers v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 325 (Cochin)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Share capital with premium- Detection by investigation wing- Survey-Filing of revised return after survey is not with bonafide intention-Levy of penalty is held to be justified.
Soni Ashokkumar Maganlal v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 409 (Ahd.) (Trib.) Soni Hiralal Mangal v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 409 (Ahd.)(Trib.) Soni Kamlesh Mangal v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 409 ( Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Failure to show the interest income due to inadvertent mistake of accountant – Levy of penalty is not justified.
V. K. C. Jayamohan v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib.)