S. 32 : Depreciation -Motor Car — Company purchasing car in name of its manager which is used for the purpose of its business is entitle to depreciation.
CIT v. Ahmedabad Strips P. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 683 (Ahd) (Trib)S. 32 : Depreciation -Motor Car — Company purchasing car in name of its manager which is used for the purpose of its business is entitle to depreciation.
CIT v. Ahmedabad Strips P. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 683 (Ahd) (Trib)S.28(i):Business loss — Fluctuation in foreign exchange loss — Derivative Contracts —Actual contract for sale of Merchandise is not speculative transaction is deductible.[ S.43(5) ]
Toshiba Embedded Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 675 (Bang) (Trib)S.28(1): Business loss — Forward and derivative contracts — gains on account of foreign exchange difference — Marked to Market Loss-Matter remanded for actual verification of entries in the books of account . [ S.37(1) ]
CIT v. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 689 (Mum) (Trib)S. 10A : Free trade zone – Communication charges and travelling and conveyance expenses is to be excludible both from export turnover and total turnover – Interest earned on fixed deposits is part of business income which is deductible.
Toshiba Embedded Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 675 (Bang) (Trib)S. 275 : Penalty – Bar of limitation – Takes or accepts any loan or deposit – Repayment of loan or deposit – Limitation period of six months to be reckoned from the end of month initiation of the penalty proceedings by JCIT and not from the date of assessment order – Penalty u/s2771D is independent under assessment .-JCIT is only authority competent to initiate proceedings and impose penalty – Not barred by limitation .[ S. 269SS, 269T,271D, 271E ]
Nitin Agrawal v. JCIT ( 2018) 302 CTR 484 / 166 DTR 27/ ( 2019) 212 ITR 309 ( MP) (HC)S.260A: Appeal – – High Court – Inter department litigation-Clearance from the Committee on dispute – Order of High Court directing the CIT to approach the High Powered Committee for clearance of Committee on Dispute for filing appeal before the High court is set aside and matter remanded to High Court for deciding the appeal on merits .
CIT v. Doordarshan Commercial Services ( 2018) 166 DTR 425/ 255 Taxman 34/303 CTR 129 (SC)S. 80HHC : Export business – Total turn over – Excise duty-Excise duty paid by assessee was to be excluded from the total turnover for purpose of computation of deduction .
Standard Batteries Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 166 DTR 289 / 255 Taxman 380/ 304 CTR 1(Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.orgInterpretation of taxing statues- Intention of legislature must prevail [ S. 10A,80HHC, 80HHE ]
CIT v. HCL Technologies Ltd (2018) 404 ITR 719/ 165 DTR 305/302 CTR 191 / 255 Taxman 313 (SC), www.itatonline.orgInterpretation of taxing statues- Proviso- Amendment to remedy unintended consequences and make provision workable is to be treated as retrospective .[ S.40(a)(ia) ,139(1)]
CIT v. Calcutta Export Company (2018) 404 ITR 654/ 165 DTR 321/302 CTR 201/ 255 Taxman 293 (SC), www.itatonline.orgBlack Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015,
S.10(1): Offences and Prosecution — Undisclosed Foreign Income – Court cannot extend or reduce time contrary to statutory provisions – Summons issued only after notices were issued — Issue of parallel proceedings is question of fact — A writ of prohibition could not be issued to prevent the authorities from initiating prosecution, as that would render the provisions of section 48 inoperative.[ S.10(3) 11(1) 48 , Art .226 ]