Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Case addresses disallowances under Sections 14A, 40(a)(ia), chit fund losses, and professional charges. Grounds restored, partial depreciation disallowed.</h1> <h3>V Kay Translines (P) Ltd. Versus ITO</h3> V Kay Translines (P) Ltd. Versus ITO - TMI Issues Involved:1. Disallowance under Section 14A.2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia).3. Disallowance of loss on chit funds.4. Disallowance of legal and professional charges.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disallowance under Section 14A:The first issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs.78,084/- under Section 14A related to exempt income. The assessee argued that no expenses were incurred in earning the dividend income of Rs.4,500/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the disallowance based on the interest attributable to earning the dividend income, following Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] confirmed this disallowance based on the Special Bench decision in Daga Capital Management P. Ltd. However, both parties agreed that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Ltd. vs. DCIT rendered Rule 8D prospective, necessitating a de novo decision by the AO. Consequently, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration, and this ground was allowed for statistical purposes.2. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia):The second issue involves the disallowance of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on labor charges paid to Vipul Engg. Works for manufacturing an Ammonia Steel Container. The assessee contended that these charges were capitalized and not claimed as revenue expenditure, thus disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, noting the failure to deduct TDS under Section 194C. The Tribunal examined the facts and concluded that the term 'amounts payable' in Section 40(a)(ia) necessitated TDS deduction for allowability. However, since the amount was capitalized, only the depreciation claimed was disallowed. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the SMS Demag P. Ltd. decision, where Section 40(a)(i) was ruled out, and upheld the disallowance to the extent of the depreciation claimed.3. Disallowance of Loss on Chit Funds:The third issue concerns the disallowance of Rs.1,10,010/- on account of chit fund losses. The assessee claimed this loss as a business expense, arguing that the chit subscription was akin to a deposit, with dividends treated as income and foregone amounts as losses. The AO disallowed the claim, referencing CBDT Instruction No.1175 and noting the lack of explanation on the utilization of funds for business purposes. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, emphasizing the absence of evidence linking the funds to business use. The Tribunal referred to the ITAT decision in Rajees vs. ITO, which allowed chit fund losses if funds were used for business purposes. Consequently, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination to determine if the funds were utilized for business purposes, allowing the ground for statistical purposes.4. Disallowance of Legal and Professional Charges:The fourth issue involves the disallowance of Rs.1,92,660/- in legal and professional charges. The AO disallowed these expenses, noting the failure to deduct TDS on professional expenses and considering them capital in nature. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, associating the expenses with vehicle registration work, thus capital in nature. The Tribunal, noting that detailed submissions were not considered, restored the issue to the AO for a fresh decision, directing consideration of the Supreme Court decision in 124 ITR 1. This ground was allowed for statistical purposes.Conclusion:The appeal was partly allowed, with the first, third, and fourth grounds restored to the AO for fresh consideration, and the second ground dismissed with a partial disallowance of depreciation claimed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found