S. 56 : Income from other Sources-Purchase of shares at Rs. 4 per shares when the market price was Rs. 140 per share-Failure to explain by credible evidence or any reason or no motive for tax evasion-Difference is held to be taxable as income .[S.56(2) (vii) (c)]
Radhika Roy v. DCIT( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329(Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Dr.Prannoy Roy v. DCIT ( 2019) 200 TTJ 665/ 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-No agricultural activities in preceding two years of transfer –Denial of exemption is held to be valid. [S. 45]
Rajiv Dass. v. CIT (OSD) (2019) 414 ITR 37/ 103 taxmann.com 192 / 264 Taxman 40 (Mag.) /307 CTR 429 (Delhi)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business Expenditure—Capital or revenue—Repair- Lease premises-Expenditure on construction and renovation of premises taken on Lease—Held to be capital expenditure. [S. 32 (IA)]
CIT v. Viswams. (2019) 414 ITR 148/ 179 DTR 25/ 263 Taxman 497 / 310 CTR 228 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. RM K. Viswanatha Pillai and sons (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. Aremaky (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.) (HC) CIT v. Kjah Enterprises P. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. K. Sivakuar (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC) CIT v. K.V. Nellaiyappan (2019) 414 ITR 148 (Mad.)(HC)S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible asset-Non–compete fee-The expression “or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature” used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights – Eligible for depreciation. [S. 32(i(ii)]
PCIT v. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS. 28(i) : Business loss-Future and options loss-Client code modification-Repetitive client code modifications-Client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulation– Loss is held to be bogus –Not allowable as business loss- Reassessment is also upheld. [S. 133(6), 147, 148]
Time Media & Entertainment LLP v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.orgS. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income–Disallowance cannot be made when there is no income exempt from tax. [R. 8D]
PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 122 / 261 Taxman 47 (Delhi) (HC) Editorail: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Caraf Builders and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. ( 2020) 268 Taxman 317 (SC)S. 260A : Appeal – High Court –Without admitting the appeal and framing any question of law and dismissing it is not in conformity with the mandatory procedure –High Court is directed to hear the appeal following the mandatory procedure. [ S.260A(2) ( C ), 260A(3) ]
Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit v .ACIT ( 2019) 308 CTR 507/ 264 Taxman 77 (SC) Editorial: From the judgement, Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit v .ACIT ( 2016) 383 ITR 562 /287 CTR 649/ 137 DTR 383 ( Karn) (HC)S.254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Duties- Ex parte order- Even if the assessee could not appear , the Tribunal could have decided the appeal on merits- The Tribunal ought to have restored the appeal on miscellaneous application filed by the assessee- Court also directed to send the copy of the Judgement to the President of the Tribunal as well as Law Secretary in the Ministry of law and Justice so that the same may be brought to the notice of all the Members of the Tribunal . [S.260A, ITATR.1963, R. 24 ]
Ritha Sabapathy (Smt) v Dy.CIT ( 2019) 416 ITR 191/308 CTR 417 / 263 Taxman 84/177 DTR 178( Mad) (HC)Words and Phrases — “And” — “Or”.
CIT v. Ram Kishan Dass. (2019) 263 Taxman 657/ 413 ITR 337/ 307 CTR 777 (SC)Interpretation of taxing statutes-Retrospective Operation- Presumption of retrospective application of amendments of Procedural nature.
CIT v. Ram Kishan Dass. (2019) 413 ITR 337 / 307 CTR 777/ 263 Taxman 657 (SC)