| Section 2(9) |
Besties Trading (P.) Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi |
Where cash deposited during demonetisation in accounts of entities controlled by an accommodation-entry operator was routed to assessee through banking channels, since both entities were found to be non-genuine and assessee failed to establish actual delivery of goods, entities were benamidars and appellant was beneficial owner, and thus, provisional attachment was justified. |
Click Here |
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 |
| Section 5 |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee, engaged in manufacture and sale of motor cars, collected advances from customers for extended warranty and offered such receipts to tax only in year when warranty obligation matured, such advances were not taxable as income in year of receipt, but only when actual liability arose. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 5 |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kisan Discretionary Family Trust |
Where assessee held investments in Deep Discount Bonds, addition made for accrued interest thereon, was not sustainable and was ordered to be deleted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 6 |
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where broadcast distribution company during relevant years collected subscription fees on behalf of AEs and entered such transactions as specified domestic transactions under section 92BA, references for transfer pricing adjustments made by Assessing Officer after 1 April 2017, following omission of clause (i) of section 92BA, could not validly sustain transfer pricing adjustments on those transactions, thus such adjustments were not tenable. |
Click Here |
General Clauses Act, 1897 |
| Section 12A |
Indian Institute of Management v. Commissioner of Income-tax(Exemptions) |
Where educational institution established under IIM Act sought registration under section 12A but was found charging high fees, generating substantial recurring surplus, and lacking material to justify necessity or scale of fund accumulation for proposed expansion, application was rightly rejected as conditions of section 2(15) were not demonstrably satisfied. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 24 |
Besties Trading (P.) Ltd. v. Initiating Officer, BPU, Delhi |
Where appellant was treated as beneficial owner with alleged cash routed through STMPL and DTPL during demonetisation and argued that deletion of addition in income-tax proceedings justified genuineness, acceptance under Income-tax Act did not override Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, and finding of genuineness for tax purposes would not nullify benami transaction proceedings or attachment. |
Click Here |
Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 |
| Section 32 |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee claimed depreciation based on differences due to exchange loss capitalisation and opening WDV adjustments, and provided reconciliation for fixed asset additions under Companies Act versus Income-tax Act but Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation, matter was to be remanded for Assessing Officer’s consideration of reconciliation and relevant evidence explaining such differences. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee, automobile manufacturer, recognised liability towards ESOP expenses related to parent group and AO disallowed such expenses based on non-remittance to USA entity, since assessee sought verification of whether liability was remitted during relevant year, matter was to be remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee claimed sales promotion expenditure on distribution of gold, silver coins and jewellery to customers and dealers, and such expenses were recurring and business-linked, ad-hoc disallowance by authorities without invoking section 145(3) to reject books was unjustified, so entire sales promotion expenditure was allowable with no part disallowed. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee engaged in infrastructure development incurred substantial cash expenses duly recorded in audited books, with no specific inadmissible items or violation of section 40A(3) or rejection under section 145(3), ad-hoc disallowance of such expenses on estimated basis was without foundation and could not be sustained, making impugned disallowance liable to be deleted. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 37(1) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee incurred foreign travel expenses, AO disallowed entire amount citing lack of business nexus, but CIT(A) acknowledged business purpose yet partly disallowed on estimated personal use, since department did not reject books under section 145(3), no estimated disallowance was valid and entire foreign travel expenses incurred for business were allowable. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(2) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee paid consultancy or professional fees to related parties and AO made ad hoc disallowance solely on excessiveness without cogent evidence and books were accepted as correct, no part of such expenditure could be disallowed or partly confirmed in absence of proof that payments exceeded fair market value, making ad hoc disallowance unjustified. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(2) |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee paid salaries, including to related persons, and AO made estimated ad hoc disallowance of 20 percent (later restricted to 10 percent) without pointing out any defect in supporting evidences or rejecting books of accounts, such disallowance based on presumption and not on objective criteria was not sustainable and was to be deleted. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(2) |
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee made subscription-fee payments to its AEs, reported payments as specified domestic transactions and covered by section 40A(2)(b), and authorities made additions only as transfer pricing adjustments without independent determination under section 40A(2), such transfer pricing additions could not be sustained as disallowances under section 40A(2). |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 40A(3) |
ACIT v. Bajrang Bahadur Singh marhatha |
Where assessee, a civil contractor, incurred cash expenses for materials and labour and Assessing Officer disallowed payments alleging ledger manipulation without specifically verifying or identifying instances where single-payee, single-day cash payments exceeded permissible limit, such disallowance under section 40A(3) was unjustified and was to be deleted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 54EC |
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kisan Discretionary Family Trust |
Where assessee earned gains from transfer of interest coupon strips or Deep Discount Bonds held for a qualifying period, such gains are assessable as long-term capital gains and are eligible for deduction under section 54EC, and Circular No.2/2002 prescribing new tax treatment for bonds does not retrospectively apply to existing bond-holders. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 56 |
Harjeet Singh Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer |
Where assessee jointly purchased property and Assessing Officer, noticing difference between declared value and stamp duty value for assessee’s 1/3rd share, failed to refer matter to Valuation Officer as required under section 50C(2) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) despite assessee’s request, addition made as income from other sources was liable to be deleted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 |
Harjeet Singh Chhabra v. Income Tax Officer |
Where assessee jointly purchased immovable property and explained source of investment for his 1/3rd share through bank statements, treating such share as unexplained investment was unjustified and addition was to be deleted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69 |
Devalapur Raghavendra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee, a goldsmith and trader in gold jewellery and silver articles, declared excess cash and stock found during survey as additional business income and duly recorded same in its books while finalising accounts for relevant year, since survey was conducted before closure of financial year and no evidence indicated any source of income other than declared business, additions under sections 69, 69A and 69B, with taxation under section 115BBE, were unsustainable and liable to be deleted. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69A |
Ford India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, LTU |
Where assessee, an automobile manufacturer, showed discrepancy in vehicles between tax audit and cost audit reports due to certain cars being used as test vehicles and capitalised as fixed assets, inclusion of these vehicles in closing stock was unwarranted, but since assessee’s claim required factual verification, matter was to be remanded for due verification of submissions. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 69C |
Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT |
Where assessee furnished complete documentation for purchases, made payments by account payee cheques, and suppliers were GST-registered with returns and GST inputs verifiable, in absence of books rejection under section 145 or further enquiries by AO, ad-hoc disallowance for alleged bogus purchases was not sustainable. |
Click here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Cialfo Subcontinent (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Itd. |
Where assessee, a subsidiary providing education SaaS services, reimbursed cost of laptops procured by its AE but payment was still outstanding, non-availability of supporting records for the transaction led to TP adjustment, so in light of absence of payment entries, matter required fresh adjudication after assessee furnished certificate from AE regarding laptop supply and reimbursement claims. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 92C |
Cialfo Subcontinent (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Itd. |
Where assessee, a wholly owned subsidiary engaged in education-related SaaS in India, claimed that outstanding sums from its Singapore AE were interest-free operational funds but failed to provide a certified bank statement, auditor’s confirmation, or parent AE’s certificate, matter required readjudication on condition that assessee files these documents for consideration. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 139 |
Cialfo Subcontinent (P.) Ltd. v. Assessment Unit Itd. |
Where assessee, engaged in education SaaS, filed return on 29 November after being required to furnish report under section 92E, return was within due date and entitled to set-off and carry forward of current and brought-forward business losses, and where AO had not proposed disallowance in draft order, deviation in final order without proper opportunity was impermissible. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 145 |
ACIT v. Bajrang Bahadur Singh marhatha |
Where assessee civil contractor failed to produce books and supporting vouchers for cash expenditures and AO applied section 40A(3) disallowance, Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting books under section 145(3) and estimating business income at 6 percent of gross receipts, as such action appropriately replaced harsh disallowance with reasonable estimation. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 |
Ankit Agarwal v. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee had duly filed return and audit report, but Assessing Officer issued notice for income escaping assessment based on incorrect ‘non-filing of return’ information and no supporting material was furnished to assessee, issuance of notice under section 148A(b) for this year was barred by section 149 as amended and reassessment proceedings were without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 149 |
Golam Sadique Dhali v. ITO, Ward-50(1) |
Where assessee deposited cash of Rs. 20 lakhs and entered into an immovable property transaction of Rs. 64.29 lakhs but did not file return, notice under section 148 issued beyond three years was time-barred as escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs under section 149(1)(b). |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 270A |
Zee Akaash News (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax |
Where assessee, a television broadcaster, claimed expenditure, depreciation and amortisation on transactions with MMCPL, which was found to be an accommodation entry provider issuing bogus bills at inflated prices, Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 270A for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting, since assessee offered additional income only after being confronted with adverse survey findings, did not file a revised return and failed to establish a bona fide explanation, disclosure was not voluntary and case fell within section 270A(9), warranting levy of penalty. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
| Section 271AAB |
Pallavi Sethi v. ACIT/DCIT |
Where assessee reported excess F&O loss in return due to a clerical computational error and voluntarily offered differential amount to tax, such inadvertent error did not constitute ‘undisclosed income’ under section 271AAB(3)(c), nor could assessee’s offer to tax amount be treated as false, hence penalty under section 271AAB(1A) was not leviable. |
Click Here |
Income-tax Act, 1961 |
