S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Brand building – Advertisement expenses- Held to be revenue expenditure
ACIT v. Jansons Industries Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 19 (UO)(Chennai)(Trib.)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Brand building – Advertisement expenses- Held to be revenue expenditure
ACIT v. Jansons Industries Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 19 (UO)(Chennai)(Trib.)S. 22 : Income from house property – letting out of its permanent structured on regular basis is assessable as income from house property – Receipt of license fee for use of craft stalls organized with object of promoting tourism, is taxable as business income [ S.28 (i) ]
Delhi Tourism & Transport Development Corp. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 305 / 170 DTR 129(Delhi)(Trib.)S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income – Superior authority can also sanction prosecution–Imposition of penalty under Section 271F by AO not a pre-requisite for sanctioning prosecution –MD and other directors equally responsible for non-fling of return and hence other directors are also at default. [S. 271F, 278BB, 279]
Arun Mitter v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 401 / 305 CTR 577 (Delhi)(HC)S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Maintainability-Small tax effect—the “tax effect” is much less than Rs. 20,00,000 for all the assessment years taken together and no material on record to show that the present appeals filed by the Revenue have any cascading effect—Therefore, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.
CIT v. CIT, Belgaum Urban Development Authority (2018) 304 CTR 994 / 170 DTR 279 (Karn.)(HC)S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Non consideration of case laws cited by Assessee during the hearing by Tribunal-Impugned order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Assessee’s Miscellaneous Application as well as the Appellate order are set aside. [S. 254(1)]
Amore Jewels (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 305 CTR 305 / 169 DTR 369 (Bom.)(HC)S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Transfer of income where there is no transfer of assets – Clubbing of income–Tribunal’s original order requires no rectification as it also considered reasoning of CIT(A) who took note of all the judgements relied by Assessee. [S. 60, 63]
Ambience Developers & Infrastructures (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 171 DTR 369/( 2019) 410 ITR 289/ 307 CTR 516 (Delhi)(HC) Ambience Hotels & Resorts v. CIT (2018) 171 DTR 369 (2019) 410 ITR 289 / 307 CTR 516 (Delhi)(HC)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Co-operative societies-Tribunal while considering the issue of deduction under S. 80P(2)(a)(i) to Assessee suddenly shifted to Section 80P(4) and held that the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of S. 80P(4) without providing an opportunity to the Assessee- Order of Tribunal s set aside. [S.80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4)]
Bellad Bagewadi Krishi Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 DTR 140 (Karn.)(HC)S. 234 B : Interest-Advance tax-Interest is chargeable at the rate provided under S.234B(3) of the Act on the differential tax payable on reassessment – as even before the regular assessment the tax paid under S. 140A was returned with interest and Department did not have any benefit of the amounts. [S. 140A, 234B(3)]
CIT v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (2018) 166 DTR 181/ (2019) 307 CTR 349 (Ker.)(HC)S. 226 : Collection and recovery -Arrest and Detention- Since the detenue did not co-operate with IT Dept in any manner and the TRO has followed all the due procedure before his arrest, there was no need to produce Assessee before the Magistrate and no violation has been made under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India – Writ of habeas corpus is dismissed [R. 73, 76, CRPC, S. 57, Art. 21]
Ayush Kataria v. UOI (2018) 305 CTR 110 / 170 DTR 408 (MP)(HC)S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Time available for filing appeal-Interim protection granted to the petitioners shall continue till the stay petitions in the tax case appeals are heard- During appeal time, if recovery proceedings are initiated, it would virtually render the appeal as infructuous.[S. 260A]
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ITAT (2018) 305 CTR 891 / 172 DTR 33 (Mad.)(HC)