S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Mere inclusion of name originally and object in bye-laws of society is not conclusive, deduction is eligible .
Eluru Co-Operative House Mortgage Society Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 403 ITR 172 (T&AP) (HC)S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Mere inclusion of name originally and object in bye-laws of society is not conclusive, deduction is eligible .
Eluru Co-Operative House Mortgage Society Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 403 ITR 172 (T&AP) (HC)S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account – Purchase of land – Difference between the amount disclosed and estimate by Assessing Officer cannot be treated as undisclosed . [ S.153A ]
PCIT v. Millennium Park Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 178 (Guj) (HC)S.68: Cash credits — Deposit in Bank- — Failure to explain the source satisfactorily addition was held to be justified .
Krishan Kumar Sethi v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 189 / 255 Taxman 193 (Delhi) (HC)S.37(1): Business Expenditure – Commission – Expenditure incurred was reasonably linked with its business which was confirmed by the parties hence allowable as business expenditure
CIT v. Mohan Export India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 207/162 DTR 247 /253 Taxman 386 (Delhi) (HC)S.32: Depreciation —Machinery utilised for trial runs is entitle to depreciation .
PCIT v. Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 248 / 98 Taxmann.com 186(Bom) (HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 79 (SC)S. 10(34) :Dividend – Domestic companies – Tax on distribution of profits – Applicable only for amounts which suffered tax u/s 115O does not apply to deemed dividends . [S. 2(22)(e), 115O]
DR. T. J. Jaikish v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 256 (Ker) (HC)Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
S. 22A: Appellate Authority- Appellate Authority of four members can hear and decide appeal, in spite of recusal of one of members .
S. 264 : Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Where assessee deliberately avoided availing of regular remedy by way of an appeal against assessment order and just before expiry of prescribed time period, preferred revision same was rightly dismissed by Principal Commissioner .
Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2018) 406 ITR 342 /254 Taxman 357/ 167 DTR 100/ 304 CTR 665 (Karn.)(HC), Editorial : Order of single judge was set aside ,Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2021) 323 CTR 480 / 207 DTR 249 ( Karn ) (HC)S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal – Powers of President -Power to constitute special Bench is with president , Court will not interfere .
Google India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(IT) (2018) 254 Taxman 228/163 DTR 497 / 302 CTR 276/( 2019) 412 ITR 372 (Karn.)(HC)S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Once penalty order was set aside by revisional authority, it was thereafter not open for Commissioner (Appeals) to still examine merits of such an order and declare his legal opinion on same. [ S.264,271(1)(c ) ]
Nitin Babubhai Rohit v. Dharmendra Vishnubhai Patel (2018) 409 ITR 276/ 254 Taxman 103 (Guj.)(HC)