S. 54EC : Capital gains – Investment in bonds -Part consideration in escrow account – Invested in the year of receipt -Entitle to exemption .[ S.45 ]
CIT v. Mahipinder Singh Sandhu (2019) 416 ITR 175/ 182 DTR 369/ 311 CTR 116 (P&H) (HC)S. 54EC : Capital gains – Investment in bonds -Part consideration in escrow account – Invested in the year of receipt -Entitle to exemption .[ S.45 ]
CIT v. Mahipinder Singh Sandhu (2019) 416 ITR 175/ 182 DTR 369/ 311 CTR 116 (P&H) (HC)S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Sale transaction trough dealers on principal -to -principal basis –Dealer could not be considered as commission agent of the assessee- Not liable to deduct tax at source- No disallowances can be made . [ S.194H ]
CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 144/ 266 Taxman 19 (Mag)/ 311 CTR 556 / 184 DTR 84 (Guj)(HC)S.37(1): Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Replacement of components of existing machinery to maintain efficiency and production capacity- Held to be revenue expenditure .
CIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 144/266 Taxman 19 ( Mag)/ 311 CTR 556 / 184 DTR 84 (Guj)(HC)S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital – Advance to sister concerns without interest – Having sufficient interest free funds – Disallowance of interest cannot be made .
CIT v. Malhotra Book Depot. (2019) 416 ITR 221 (P&H) (HC)S.28(i): Business loss- Sale of Fertilizer Bonds received as subsidy from Government in lieu of cash — Allowable as business loss . [ S. 2(14) ]
PCIT v. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 144/ 266 Taxman 19 (Mag.)/ 311 CTR 556 / 184 DTR 84(Guj)(HC)S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders – levy of interest – Appeal is not maintainable unless tax liability is challenged .[ S.220 (2) ]
S. Appaswamy. v. DCIT (2019) 416 ITR 42/ 311 CTR 650/ 183 DTR 399 (Mad) (HC)S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Assessment order remanded – Levy of interest for period taken for re-computation is valid . [ S.156, 234A, 234B, 234C ]
S. Appaswamy. v. DCIT (2019) 416 ITR 42 / 311 CTR 650/ 183 DTR 399(Mad) (HC)S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Notice based solely on report of District valuation Officer is not valid . [ S. 142A ,148 ]
Darshan Buildcon. v. ITO (2019) 416 ITR 66 (Guj) (HC)S.147: Reassessment — After the expiry of four years- Notice issued within six years – escaped assessment of more than Rs .1 lakh – Not barred by limitation- Depreciation – No failure to disclose material facts – Change of opinion – Reassessment is bad on law . [ S. 32, 148 , 149(1) b) ]
U. P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd v . (2019) 416 ITR 82 (All)(HC)S.143(3): Assessment – Trader transferring he goods to another trader. At a price less than the market price- Transactions showing loss – Addition cannot be made as income from undisclosed sources – No substantial question of law .[ S.260A ]
CIT v. Pragnesh Ramanlal Patel. (2019) 416 ITR 106/ 265 Taxman 434 (Guj) (HC)