Section 2(19AA) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(19AA) is 277(D- E) and CIT v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (225 ITR 703), cited in 49 of the 47 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(19AA)

277(D- E) and CIT v. U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation
225 ITR 703 · 1997 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The ordinary principles of commercial accounting should be applied for ascertaining profits and gains, provided they do not contradict the Income-tax Act.

Wimco Seedlings v. DCIT
107 ITD 267 · 2007 · ITAT
40
citing judgments

There can be no presumption that an assessee must have incurred expenditure to earn tax-free income. Disallowance under section 14A requires actual expenditure, not notional or estimated amounts.

Industrial Development Bank of India v. ITO
107 ITD 45 · 2007 · ITAT
36
citing judgments

TDS provisions do not apply if the payee is not identified at the time of making provision for an expense. The scheme of TDS requires the payer to know the identity of the recipient of the income.

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Additional CIT
56 Taxmann.com 415 · 2015 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Profits and gains from scraps resulting from a manufacturing process are eligible for deduction under Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act.

TUV India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
110 Taxmann.com 175 · 2019 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Addition should not be made when tax authorities fail to conduct inquiries with TDS deductors regarding discrepancies between Form 26AS and books of account, despite having the information and opportunity. Disallowance of expenses is arbitrary and against the rule of law if made without rejecting books of account or identifying specific discrepancies.

DP World (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
140 ITD 694 · 2013 · ITAT
17
citing judgments

A transaction of gift cannot be brought to tax. Corporations can give and accept gifts, and these are considered capital receipts, not taxable under Section 28(iv).

261 ITR 501 (Bom HC)\nb. CIT v. Compaq Electric Ltd.
26 Taxmann.com 333 · 2012 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Section 41(1) cannot be invoked if no deduction was granted to the assessee in earlier years. Section 41(1) applies specifically to remission of trading liabilities, and waiver of a loan is a cessation of liability other than a trading liability.

Premji Khimraj Shah v. ITO
118 ITR 216 · 1979 · Reported
11
citing judgments

Succession to business requires the successor to take over the whole or substantially the whole of the predecessor's business and continue it. A successor to only a part of the business, resulting from disintegration, is not considered a successor to the original business.

(CIT v. STADS Ltd.
373 ITR 313 · 2015 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Reserves created under a scheme of amalgamation are capital in nature and do not arise from normal business activity, therefore cannot be taxed as business income. Amounts reflected in 'reserves and surplus' cannot be treated as a benefit or perquisite arising from business.

(i) Bharati Airtel v. Addl.CIT
49 Taxmann.com 146 · 2014 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

A transaction between two enterprises constitutes an 'international transaction' under section 92B only if it has a bearing on profits, incomes, losses, or assets of such enterprises. This includes transactions mentioned in the explanation to section 92B, such as giving guarantees, provided they impact the enterprise's financial results.

Judgments on Section 2(19AA)

DCIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Mawawan Sugar Ltd., New Delhi

In the result both the grounds of appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 820/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit (Ltu), Mawana Sugar Ltd, (Presently Known As M/S. Siel Ltd., 5Th Nbcc Plaza, Vs. Pusp Vihar, Floor, Kirti Mahal, 19, New Delhi Rajendra Place, New Delhi Pan:Aahcs4120R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Trandeep Singh, Ca Respondent By : Sh.Balwan Chauhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2015 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, A. M. 01. The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Ix, New Delhi Dated 30.09.2009 Passed For The Assessment Year 2003-04. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That There Was Valid ‘Demerger’ U/S 2(19Aa) Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is To Be Allowed Carry Forward Of Loss & Unabsorbed Deprecation Of Rs.46,57,12,585/-“ 02. This Company Was Incorporated On 26.12.2002 I Under The Name & Style Of Siel Sugar Sugars Limited & Subsequently The Name Of This Assessee Was Changed W.E.F 16.06.2004 To Mawana Sugars Limited. The Facts In Brief Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture & Sale Of Sugar. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 24.10.2003 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 26,79,18,903/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Processed U/S 143(1) On 19.02.2004. Notices U/S 143(2) Was Issued. The Assessing Officer Noticed In His Order That The Assessee Failed To Furnish Accurate Particulars Of Its Income By Wrongly Claiming Carry

For Appellant: Sh. Trandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh.Balwan Chauhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 391Section 72ASection 72A(4)