S. 80G : Donation – Approval under section 80G(5)(vi) could not be denied merely because donations made by assessee-trust were of insignificant amount. [S. 80G(5)(vi)]
CIT v. Mata Padmawati Shyamdaya Charitable Trust (2019) 260 Taxman 266 (Bom.)(HC)S. 80G : Donation – Approval under section 80G(5)(vi) could not be denied merely because donations made by assessee-trust were of insignificant amount. [S. 80G(5)(vi)]
CIT v. Mata Padmawati Shyamdaya Charitable Trust (2019) 260 Taxman 266 (Bom.)(HC)S. 68 : Cash credits -Cash deposited in bank- creditors did not respond – Cross examination was not requested – Addition is held to be justified.
Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 326/ 178 DTR 44/ 309 CTR 92/(2020) 423 ITR 489 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. ITO ( 2011) 128 ITD 74 (Bang ) (Trib) is affirmed.S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Exemption is available though the construction of new property was not completed with in period of three years [ S.45 ]
PCIT v. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) 260 Taxman 317 / 177 DTR 158/ 308 CTR 662(Karn.)(HC)S. 45 (4) : Capital gains – Firm -Retirement of partners-On contribution the individual property to firm, it is the property of the firm – Tribunal is justified in assessing the capital gains in the assessment of the firm.[ S.45 ]
S.K. Ravikumar v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 288/ 413 ITR 456/ 180 DTR 20/ 310 CTR 212 (Karn.)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business promotion-Failure to produce supporting evidence–Disallowance of 50% of expenses are held to be justified.
Sandeep Marwah v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 231 (Delhi)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Finance lease-Operating lease – Accounting Standard 19 – Matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal [S. 254(1)]
Tristar Container Services Asia (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 277 (Mad.)(HC)S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Anaesthesia speciality – Education programme and research work in larger perspective were going to benefit public at large – Entitled for registration [ S.2(15) ]
CIT(E) v. Anesthesia Society (2019) 260 Taxman 375/ 183 DTR 221 (Raj)(HC)S. 10(12) : Accumulated balance–Recognised provident fund – Accumulated balance lying in provident fund of assessee upto retirement is eligible for exemption.
PCIT v. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) 260 Taxman 317/177 DTR 158/ 308 CTR 662 (Karn.)(HC)S. 2(24) : Income – Concept of real income- Statutory levy under the VAT Act, 2005 is being collected by virtue of the powers entrusted by the State Government to the assessee- entire collection is deposited in the Government Treasury of the State after deducting the actual expenditure incurred by the assessee- No real income accrues to the society-Not necessary to get registration u/s 12AA of the Act. [S. 4, 5, 12AA]
PCIT v. H.P. Excise & Taxation Technical Service Agency (2019) 260 Taxman 302/173 DTR 13 (HP)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. H.P. Excise & Taxation Technical Service Agency ( 2019) 266 Taxman 280 (SC)S. 2(ea) : Assets-Urban land-Belonging—Ownership-Owner-Pendency of litigation regarding ownership of land is pending for adjudication—Possession with assessee-Includible in net wealth– Protective assessment is held to be valid.
CIT v. Meenakshi Devi Avaru ( Smt) (Decd.) Through Legal Heirs. (2019) 410 ITR 306/ 176 DTR 1 / 308 CTR 83(Karn.)(HC) CIT v. Kamakshi Devi (Smt.) (2019) 410 ITR 306 (Karn.)(HC)