S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Unexplained money-Possession of goods as bailee for carriage of goods-Does not render owner of gods or deemed to be owner-Bitumen is not a valuable article in context of section 69A-Assessee was mere carrier supplying goods (Bitumen) from consignor i.e. oil marketing companies to consignee i.e. road construction department, he could not be said to be owner for purpose of section 69A of the Act-Other Valuable article-Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes-Ejusdem Generis-Noscitur A Sociis-To be construed Ejusdem Generis with money, bullion or jewellery-Additions deleted. [S. 69A,Carriage by Road Act, 2017, S 15,Contract Act, 1872, S. 148, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S. 54, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S. 405, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, S. 27, 39, Circular No. 20 of 1964, dated 7-7-19964 instruction No. 1916 dated 11-5-1994 ]
D. N. Singh v. CIT (2023)454 ITR 595/ 293 Taxman 550/ 332 CTR 665 / 226 DTR 17 (SC) Editorial : Decisions in, D. N. Singh v. CIT (2010) 324 ITR 304 (Pat)(HC), D. N. Singh v. CIT (2018) 504 ITR 507 (Pat)(HC), reversed.
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 68 : Cash credits-Failed to prove identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction-SLP of assessee dismissed.[Art. 136]
Rupal Jain v. CIT (2023) 454 ITR 813 / 294 Taxman 261 (SC) Editorial : Rupal Jain v. CIT (All)(HC) (ITA No. 83 of 2022 dt. 17-11-2022)S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Compulsory acquisition of land and buildings-S.2(47), 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, The Indian Registration Act, 1908, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, S.96]
PCIT v. Durgapur Projects Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 367/ 333 CTR 158/ 227 DTR 35 (Cal)(HC)S. 45 : Capital gains-Retirement-Firm-Excess of amount due-Goodwill-No discussion in the judgement-Matter remanded to the High court for reconsideration.
PCIT v. R. F. Nangrani HUF (2023)454 ITR 426/ 293 Taxman 511/ 332 CTR 510/ 225 DTR 217 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court is set aside and remanded, CIT v. R. F. Nangrani HUF (Bom)(HC) (ITA No. 33 of 2016 dt 18-4 2018)S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Electricity duty-A Licensee-An agency to collect electricity duty from consumers and to pay it to State Government-Disallowance not attracted-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [Art. 136]
PCIT v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 801 / 293 Taxman 426 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd(2022) 449 ITR 605 (P&H) (HC), affirmed.S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for warranty-Depreciation on intellectual property. [S. 32, 145(2), 260A]
PCIT v. Landis GYR(2023) 454 ITR 462 (Cal)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Contingent-Ascertained expenditure-Premium payment on redemption of shares which has been quantified-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Duty of Tribunal to give finding based on facts. [S. 254(1)]
Nitesh Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)454 ITR 770 (Karn)(HC)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business loss-Unexplained investments-Search-Unaccounted silver-Penalty or confiscation-Loss on account of confiscation-Not allowable as business loss. [S. 28(i), 37(1), Expln. 69A, 115BBE]
CIT v. Prakash Chand Lunia (Decd. Through Lrs) and Another (2023)454 ITR 61/ 293 Taxman 229 / 332 CTR 261/ 225 DTR 57 (SC) Editorial : Order of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High court, reversed, IT v. Prakash Chand Lunia (Decd. Through Lrs) And Another (Raj(HC) (ITA No. 96 of 2003 & ITR NO. 6 OF 1996 DT. 22-11-2016)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Lease of assets-Lease rent assessed as business income in the assessment of lessor-lease rent should be allowed as deduction-Revenue cannot contend that the assessee is the owner. [S. 32, Art. 132]
CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 584 / 292 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd (Guj)(HC)(ITA No. 1037 of 2013 dt. 28-1-2014)S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Final difference in rate paid at end of accounting year-Allowable as deduction. [S. 145]
CIT (Central) v. Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 434/ 293 Taxman 603 /334 CTR 218 (SC) Editorial: Affirmed, CIT (Central) v. Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd (2009) 315 ITR 304 (Bom)(HC)