S.37(1): Business expenditure — Provision for damaged goods -Held to be allowable .
Rasna P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 28 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)S.37(1): Business expenditure — Provision for damaged goods -Held to be allowable .
Rasna P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 28 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)S.28(i):Business Loss — Soft drinks — Product having limited shelf Life —Non useable or non saleable which was destroyed – Allowable as business loss .
Rasna P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018)63 ITR 28 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)S.28(i): Business loss — Litigation and bona fide dispute about goods at Bangladesh border – Foreseeable Loss — Held to be allowable . [ S.37(1), 145 ]
Rasna P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 28 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house -Investment in new asset is greater than capital gains -Partly out of sale proceeds and partly with bank Loan —Exemption is available [ S.45 ]
Kayvanbhai Surendrabhai Huttheesingh v. ITO (2018) 63 ITR 17 (SN) (SMC)(Ahd) (Trib)S. 147 : Reassessment -No tangible material- Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.148 ]
DCIT v. Sandvik Information Technology AB (2018) 63 ITR 19 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)S.253: Appellate Tribunal – Tax Effect below prescribed limit -Appeal is not maintainable .
DCIT v. Talwar Mobiles P. Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 18(SN) (Hyd) (Trib)S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Cash credits -Share application money -Details were filed in the original assessment proceedings -AO is not to be expected to discuss each and every item of verification in assessment order- Revision is held to be not justified .[ S.143(3)]
RBS Credit And Financial Development P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 63 ITR 20 (SN) (Kol)( Trib)S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders–Filed after expiry period of limitation- justified in dismissing the petition. [S. 143(3), 147]
Jindal Metal Co. v. PCIT (2019) 260 Taxman 220/ 176 DTR 299/ 308 CTR 180 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest income – Accrual- No failure to disclose material facts–Reassessment is bad in law. [ S. 5, 148]
PCIT v. State Bank of Saurashtra (2019) 260 Taxman 194 (Bom.)(HC)S. 148 : Reassessment–Merged with another company-Notice issued in name of assessee became invalid and quashed [S. 147].
ACIT v. Dharmnath Shares & Services (P.) Ltd ( 2018) 94 taxmann.com 458 /(2019) 410 ITR 431 ( Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, ACIT v. Dharmnath Shares & Services (P.) Ltd. (2019) 260 Taxman 174/ 409 ITR 4 (St) (SC)