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–Cost of print and publicity–cost of production- Feature films -Expenditure were incurred after production and certification of film by Censor Board was received – Not governed by Rule 9A- Allowable as revenue expenditure. [R. 9A 9B]
CIT v. Dharma Productions (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 585 / 308 CTR 809 / 177 DTR 321 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 28(i) : Business income-Income from house property–Shopping mall -Commercial exploitation-Facilities and services-Income derived by assessee by letting out shops in mall had to be assessed as income from business and not as income from house property. [S. 22]
CIT v. Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 377/ 311 CTR 815/ 184 DTR 56 (Ker.)(HC)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Artists and actors -Advance paid to purchase leasehold right in auditorium was to be considered as application of income- Entitle to exemption.[ S.2(15) 11(1)(a), 11(5)]
Nadigar Sangam Charitable Trust v. ADIT (2019) 263 Taxman 648/ 179 DTR 297/ 310 CTR 483 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 10AA : Special economic zones-Reconstruction-sole proprietorship was not been shifted to firm -Only Capital received from sole proprietorship-Not a reconstruction – Entitle to exemption. [S.10AA)4)(iii)]
PCIT v. Green Fire Exports (2019)106 taxmann.com 32 / 263 Taxman 676 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Green Fire Exports (2019) 263 Taxman 675 (SC)
S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation–Initiation of penalty starts from issue of show cause notice and not from date of order u/s 201(1)- Penalty order was within time and not barred by limitation. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 271C]
Jaipur National University v. Jt. CIT (2019) 175 DTR 337/198 TTJ 457 (Jaipur) (Trib.)
S. 271D : Penalty-Accepts any loan or deposit–Sum initially advanced as loan by father to son, but later treated as gift transaction cannot be subject to S. 269SS-levy of penalty is not justified .[S. 269S]
Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel v. Jt. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 73 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)