S. 69A : Unexplained money–Unexplained cash receipts-Description of property was not furnished–Addition is held to be justified.
Sangeetha Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 61/ 261 Taxman 220 (Karn.)(HC)S. 69A : Unexplained money–Unexplained cash receipts-Description of property was not furnished–Addition is held to be justified.
Sangeetha Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 61/ 261 Taxman 220 (Karn.)(HC)S. 57 : Income from other sources–Interest–Intercorporate deposits (ICDS)-Interest received is held to be taxable as income from other sources–Interest paid to sister concern is held to be allowable as deduction. [S. 56]
PCIT v. Jubilant Energy Nelp-V (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 194/ 178 DTR 365 (Delhi)(HC)S. 54F : Capital gains–Capital asset-Investment in a residential house–Booked a flat in January 1981–Right in the flat was sold in the year 2005 -Allowable deduction. [S. 2(14), 45]
CIT v. Kalpana Hansraj (2019) 261 Taxman 294 / 176 DTR 217/ 307 CTR 797 (Bom.)(HC)S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability–Not claimed any deduction of any trading liability in any earlier year-Addition cannot be made.
CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283 /(2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)S. 40A(9) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Bonus to employees-Contribution made by assessee-company to various clubs meant for staff and their families was admissible as deduction [S. 37(1)]
CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 251 (Bom.)(HC)S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source–Payee filed the return and offered the sum received from the assessee – Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect from 1-4-2010-No disallowances can be made. [SD. 194J, 201]
CIT v. Bhanot Construction & Housing Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 262 (Delhi)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Illegal Commission-Volcker Committee Report – No finding that the asesee had made payment – Deletion of addition held to be justified.
CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283/ / (2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Financial services-Sub–brokerage– Disallowance of 10% sub brokerage is held to be justified.
PCIT v. Paramount Financial Services (2019) 261 Taxman 128 (Bom.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Provision for project expenses – TDS was also deduced – Held to be allowable. [S. 145]
CIT v. Grace Colonizers (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 176 (Raj.)(HC)S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Failure to establish that the expenses related to Hotel business was her proprietorship business – Disallowance was confirmed.
Sangeetha Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 61/ 261 Taxman 220 (Karn.)(HC)