This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 43B : Certain deductions only on actual payment-Interest payable to Government of India is crystalized based on facts, even though not accounted in books due to comments of statutory auditor, and hence is allowed as expense on accrual basis even not accounted for in books. [S. 145]
Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 1010 / 204 DTR 347 / (2022) 192 ITD 142 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Service tax liability-Not claimed as deduction-Outstanding service tax liability not liable to be added.
Ken Consulting P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 89 ITR 2 (SN) (Bang.) (Trib.)
S. 40(a)(ii) : Amounts not deductible-Rates or tax-Education Cess-Allowable as deduction-Transfer pricing adjustment-Matter remanded. [S. 37(1), 92C]
Emerson Climate Technologies (India) P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2021) 89 ITR 69 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Contractor-Disallowance section is not warranted where the payee furnishes the return of income taking into account the sum(s) received from the payer, tax due on the return income has been paid and certificate of a Chartered Accountant to that effect has been furnished. [S. 194C]
DCIT v. Pfizer Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 198 DTR 273 / 210 TTJ 908 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Running infertility clinic carrying out in vitro Fertilisation-Payee not maintaining proper accounts-Disallowance is held to be justified. [S. 194C]
Kiran Infertility Central Private Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 89 ITR 434 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Fes for technical services-Payment per head is not in excess of threshold limit-Not liable to deduct tax at source [S. 91(1)(vii), 194J]
Kiran Infertility Central Private Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 89 ITR 434 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-The expenditure necessary to maintain Assessee’s corporate personality would be an allowable expenditure even when no business was undertaken.
Sir Pratap Heritage Hotels (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 209 TTJ 1 (UO) (Jodhpur)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Interest for delayed payment of service tax-Allowable as deduction-Remanded for verification.
Central Warehousing Corporation v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 208 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt-Non-banking finance company-Interest income offered to tax in earlier years-Referral fee paid to group entity-Matter remanded for verification. [S. 37(1)]
Monarch Networth Finserve P. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 89 ITR 50 (SMC) (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(va) : Any sum received from employees-Where assessee deposited employee’s contribution to ESI after the due date under the respective Act but before the due date of filing the return of income under the Act, the same would not warrant any disallowance. [S. 2(24)(x), 139(1)]
DCIT v. Saileela Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 199 DTR 201 / 210 TTJ 763 (Jodhpur)(Trib.)