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. 45(2) : Capital gains-Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade-Date of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade has to be determined either on basis of entry passed in books of account of assessee or intention of assessee to exploit capital asset as stock-in-trade for its business purpose. [S. 45]
Puran Ratilal Mehta v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 190 /178 DTR 217/199 TTJ 607(Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 45 : Capital gains-Long term capital gains- Lease –Entire consideration was paid when site was originally allotted in 2001- Date of holding to be computed from the date of allotment and not from the date of absolute conveyance was made and entitle to deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. [S. 2(42A), 2(47), 54, 54F]
Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash. v. ITO (2019) 175 ITD 144 / 199 TTJ 861/180 DTR 100(Bang.) (Trib.)
S. 45 : Capital gains-Lease hold rights–Assessable as capital gain –Cannot be claimed as exempt on the ground that it was in respect of agricultural land–Market value on allotment of land. [S.48, 50C ]
Pyaribai K Jain v. Add. CIT (2019) 175 ITD 177 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 45 : Capital gains-Penny Stocks-It is intriguing is that the company had meagre resources and reported consistent losses. The astronomical growth of the value of company’s shares naturally excited the suspicions of the Revenue-The company was even directed to be delisted from the stock exchange-The assessee’s argument that he was denied the right to cross-examine the individuals whose statements led to the inquiry and ultimate disallowance of the long term capital gain claim is not relevant in the wake of findings of fact. [S. 68, 260A]
Udit Kalra v. ITO ( 2019) 176 DTR 249/ 308 CTR 50 (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org Editorial: Udit Kalra v. ITO ( 2019) 176 DTR 257/ 199 TTJ 72 (SMC) ( Delhi) (Trib) is affirmed .
S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment–Interest–Disallowance made without making enquiries from State Finance corporation was deleted.
Manish Films (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 175 ITD 121 (Indore) (Trib.)
S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt-Suspension of trading activity on NSEL plat form- Receivable from unrealised contract in commodities-Failure to produce documents to show that transactions undertaken by assessee were delivery based–loss is held to be speculative which cannot be set off against business income- Matter remanded to AO to examine a fresh. [S. 37(1), 43(5)]
ACIT v. A U Financiers (India) Ltd. (2019) 175 ITD 245 / 180 DTR 315(Jaipur) (Trib.)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Plant and machinery installed by city development authority for water supply project would be eligible for 100 per cent depreciation-Road developed by city development authority for water supply project would be eligible for 10 per cent depreciation. [S. 80IA(4)(1), R. 5]
ACIT v. Haldia Development Authority. (2019) 175 ITD 263/ 176 DTR 433 /199 TTJ 222(Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Sufficient interest free funds to meet its investments yielding exempt dividend income- Disallowance is held to be not justified. [R. 8D]
ACIT v. A U Financiers (India) Ltd. (2019) 175 ITD 245 / 180 DTR 315(Jaipur) (Trib.)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Registration granted to assessee cricket association, cancelled earlier, had been restored- Exemption cannot be denied- Amounts received by cricket association under TV subsidy from Board of Cricket Control of India (BCCI) being under a resolution which specifically stated that TV subsidies were towards corpus funds and not under any legal obligation were to be treated as corpus donations-Depreciation on capital asset is to be allowed as application of income. [S. 11(1)(d), 12AA, 32]
Gujarat Cricket Association. v. ITO (2019) 175 ITD 224/ (2020) 190 DTR 205/ 205 TTJ 767 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Delay in filing appeals- Delay was condoned and the CIT(A) was directed to hear the appeal with in three months. [S. 10(23C)(iiiab), 11]
Yadhava Kalvi Nithi v. ITO (2018) 167 DTR 422 (Mad) (HC)