S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Interest free funds were utilized for making exempt investment-No disallowance can be made.[R. 8D].
PCIT v. Ashok Apparels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 50/(2020)423 ITR 412 (Bom.) (HC)S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Interest free funds were utilized for making exempt investment-No disallowance can be made.[R. 8D].
PCIT v. Ashok Apparels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 50/(2020)423 ITR 412 (Bom.) (HC)S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Golf facilities to its members for promotion of sport-No element of activity of being in nature of trade, commerce or business-Interest earned from banks or financial institutions on investment of surplus funds arising from charitable activities was exempted from tax. [S. 2(15)]
CIT v. Bombay Presidency Gold Club Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 55/ 182 DTR 454/ 311 CTR 578 (Bom.)(HC)S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Educational Institution-Res judicata-Denial of exemption is held to be not justified. [S. 10(23C)(vi), 12AA]
CIT v. Takshila Education Society (2019) 264 Taxman 72/ 178 DTR 182 (Patna)(HC)S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Bonus shares–Cannot be assessed as income.
PCIT v. Ashok Apparels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 264 Taxman 50/(2020)423 ITR 412 (Bom.) (HC)S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited–Audit report is made available before completion of assessment–No loss to revenue–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 44AB]
Johns Biwheelers v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 325 (Cochin)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Share capital with premium- Detection by investigation wing- Survey-Filing of revised return after survey is not with bonafide intention-Levy of penalty is held to be justified.
Soni Ashokkumar Maganlal v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 409 (Ahd.) (Trib.) Soni Hiralal Mangal v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 409 (Ahd.)(Trib.) Soni Kamlesh Mangal v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 409 ( Ahd.)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Failure to show the interest income due to inadvertent mistake of accountant – Levy of penalty is not justified.
V. K. C. Jayamohan v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 328 (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Loan from group companies-Assessing Officer had taken a conscious decision regarding non-applicability of section 2(22)(e) to loan amount in question while passing the original assessment order – Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 2(22)(e), 143(3), 153A]
Mantri Tea Company (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 177 ITD 192 (Kol.) (Trib.)S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Tribunal can recall order and change its mind in even if draft copy is signed and order is dictated in open Court- Rectification application is held to be not maintainable. [S. 254(1) R.46A]
Kamaljit Singh v. ITO (2019) 177 ITD 246 (Asr.) (Trib.)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Stay-Valuation of unquoted equity shares–Huge difference-Prima facie-Based on method laid down in Rule 11UA-Stay is granted.[S. 56, R.11UA]
Raj Sheela Growth Fund (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 177 ITD 39 (Delhi)(Trib.)