S. 22 : Income from house property–letting out property– Assessable as income from house property and not as business income.[S. 28(i)]
Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 266 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 22 : Income from house property–letting out property– Assessable as income from house property and not as business income.[S. 28(i)]
Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 266 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Suo moto disallowance which is more than exempt income- No disallowance can be made. [R. 8D]
Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 266 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 12A : Registration–Trust or institution-Medical relief- Rejection of application for registration merely on the ground that activities envisaged in aims and objects of assessee-society had not been carried out is held to be not valid -Matter remanded. [S.2(15), 12AA]
Anand Isher Amar Charitable Cancer & Multi-Speciality Hospital Society. v. CIT (2019) 176 ITD 424/ 180 DTR 170 (Asr.)(Trib.)S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty– Non-resident–Sale of software -Copyrighted products–Not liable to tax as royalty–DTAA-India-Ireland. [Art. 12]
Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. v. ACIT(IT) (2019) 69 ITR 247 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Non-Resident-Royalty-Computer software-Transfer of copyrighted software-consideration would not amount to ‘royalty’ or fees for ‘included services’ or ‘technical services’-Not taxable in India– Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India–Sweden.[S.9(1)(i), Art. 12]
Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB v. DCIT (IT) (2019) 176 ITD 390 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 2(ea): Assets-Urban land held as stock–in trade–Shown as investment-Liable to wealth tax- No substantial question of law. [S. 2(ea)(v), 2(m)]
Devineni Avinash.v .PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 28 / 177 DTR 428/ 308 CTR 350(T&AP)(HC) Devineni Lakshmi (Smt.) v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 28/ 177 DTR 428 /308 CTR 650 (T&AP)(HC)S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Repayment of deposits or Loans-Issuance of notice on 27-11-2014-Passing of final order on 21-9-2016—Barred by limitation. [S. 154, 269T, 271E]
Karnail Singh v. UOI (2019) 412 ITR 305/ 309 CTR 425 / 180 DTR 37(Pat.)(HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Claim for 100 Per Cent. Deduction-Bonafide claim–Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 80IC]
CIT v. Virgo Industries. (2019) 412 ITR 146/ 178 DTR 300 (P&H)(HC)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Depreciation-Voluntary withdrawal of claim during course of assessment proceedings- Does not mean that assessee accepted guilt or giving wrong or false explanation-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 32]
B. Loganathan v. ITO (2019) 412 ITR 642/ 180 DTR 272 / 311 CTR 107(Mad.)(HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Merger–Limitation-Merger of assessment order in appellate order—Revision is bad in law- Order of assessment in 2005— Revision in 2009—Barred by limitation-Question regarding limitation can be raised for first time Before High Court. [S.80IB, 153A, 251, 260A]
Skyline Builders v. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 182/ 179 DTR 165 / 309 CTR 415 / 265 Taxman 38 ( Mag.)(Ker.)(HC)