S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sale of emission reduction credit-Capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]
CIT v. Wescare (India) Ltd. (2021) 439 ITR 657 (Mad.)(HC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Non-compete fee-Sharing customer database and sharing of trained employees-Fee received is not taxable. [S. 28(i)]
CIT v. ABB Ltd. (2021)439 ITR 554 /(2022) 284 Taxman 350 (Karn.)(HC)Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3 : Prohibition of benami Transactions — Purchase of agricultural land – Act not applicable to companies — Action under Act should be taken within reasonable period – Provisional attachment order was set aside [S. 2(12), 2(24), 19(1)(b), 23, 24(4), Limitation Act , 1963, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 , S 90B Art , 226 ]
Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. v . Initiating Officer, Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2021)439 ITR 62//( 2022) / 285 Taxman 335 (Raj)(HC)Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020
S.2(1)(a): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Condonation of delay – Appeal Of Declarant Should Be Pending —Order condoning delay passed on 23-2-2021 — Appeal of declaration deemed to be pending on specified date 31-1-2020 — Declaration Valid – Directed the Designated Authority to accept the declaration . [ S. 2(n)- Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions)
Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel v .PCIT (2021)439 ITR 112/ (2022) 284 Taxman 694/ 210 DTR 8/ 325 CTR 75 (Guj) (HC)Art. 141 : Precedent – Judgement of Supreme Court – Cannot be construed as statute – Decision of Court should be understood by taking into account factual context in mind .
Indian Agro Food Ltd v. State Bank of India AIR 2022 MP 1S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Explanation 1 – Freebies given to doctors – Prohibited by law – Disallowed as expense – Interpretation -Taxing statutes to be interpreted strictly.-Strict interpretation should not result in absurdity contrary to intention of Parliament [Medical Council Act, 1956, S. 20A , Medical Council (professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, R. 6.8 , Contract Act , 1872 , S. 23 , General Clauses Act , 1897, S.2(38) , Indian Penal Code ,1860, S. 40, 43 ]
Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022)442 ITR 1 / 286 Taxman 200 / 211 DTR 73/ 325 CTR 121 (SC) .www.itatonline .org Editorial : Finance Act , 2022 amended the section 37 (1) provision with effect from 1-4 -2022 clarifying that the expression “ expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law .S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – CSR funds received – Specific projects – Not income of the trust – sustainable view taken by the Ld. AO – Order of revision set aside. [S. 2(24), 11 ]
JM Financial Foundation v. CIT (Mum) ( Trib ) www.itatonline .orgMotor Vehicles Act 1988.
S. 168 : Compensation – Concession by Counsel is not binding upon court – Waiver of rights of clients – Estoppel , Acquiescence and waiver .
Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ( 2021 ) 2 SCC 166The Advocates Act , 1961
S. 35: Punishment for Advocates for misconduct – Advocate advising his client that appeal pending before Supreme Court will not succeed at all – Held is a professional Misconduct – Needs to be proceeded with .
S. 98 : Securities Transaction tax-Short collection of tax-Interest and penalty-Purchase or sold through a broker registered with the stock exchange-Stock exchange was not liable to any interest and penalty. [S. 15, 99, 104, Securities Transaction Tax Rules, 2004, R. 3]
PCIT v. National Stock Exchange (2021) 323 CTR 1025 (Bom.)(HC)