S. 62 : Transfer irrevocable for a specified period–Revocable after three years – Income arising by virtue of a revocable transfer of assets would be chargeable to tax as income of transferors and would be included in their total income- Trust cannot be taxed as an AOP at maximum marginal rate. [S.61(1), 62(2), 164]
CIT v. Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund. (2019) 263 Taxman 318/ 181 DTR 139/ 310 CTR 491 (Mad.)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dimissed , CIT v. Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund ( 2020) 269 Taxman 5 (SC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 56 : Income from other Sources-Purchase of shares at Rs. 4 per shares when the market price was Rs. 140 per share-Failure to explain by credible evidence or any reason or no motive for tax evasion- Difference is held to be taxable as income. [S.56(2)(vii) (c)]
Radhika Roy v. DCIT ( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329(Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.orgS. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Cash credits-Liabilities doubted-Cannot be taxed u/s. 41(1) [S.68]
Dattatray Poultry Breeding Farm (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 415 ITR 407/ 263 Taxman 324 (Guj.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Amount forfeited by seller upon failure to pay full instalments within stipulated time period would be capital expenditure.[S. 28(i)]
Nandkishor Motilal Shah. v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 429/ 263 Taxman 36/ 179 DTR 170/ (2020) 314 CTR 663 (Bom.)(HC)S. 35 : Scientific research–Weighted deduction-Research and Development-Expenditure on development of “Research and Development’ facility was allowable even though approval of concerned Ministry of Central Government was under consideration or awaited. [S. 35(2AB)]
CIT v. TVS Electronics Ltd. (2019) 419 ITR 187/ 263 Taxman 164 (Mad.)(HC)S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible asset-Non-compete fee-The expression “or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights–Eligible for depreciation. [S.32(i(ii)]
PCIT v. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS. 32 : Depreciation-Unabsorbed depreciation-Carry forward and set off-Eligible and for carry forward and set off against business profits. [S. 32(2)]
CIT v. Associated Cables (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 113/263 Taxman 251 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Associated Cables (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 250 (SC)S. 32 : Depreciation-Additional depreciation-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Tribunal allowed assessee’s claim for additional depreciation by following order of jurisdictional High Court – Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 263]
PCIT v .Jitendra J. Mehta (2019) 104 taxman.com 448 / 263 Taxman 6 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Jitendra J. Mehta. (2019) 263 Taxman 5 (SC)S. 28(i) : Business loss-Future and options loss-Client code modification- Repetitive client code modifications-Client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulation– Loss is held to be bogus–Not allowable as business loss- Reassessment is also upheld. [S.133(6), 147, 148]
Time Media & Entertainment LLP v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.orgS. 15 : Salaries–Provision made by a company for payment of managerial remuneration- Liable to be assessed as salary.
V. Ramakrishnan v. DCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 145 (Mad.)(HC)