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. 69 : Unexplained investments-Bogus purchases-Red flagged by the Sales Tax Department –Quantity tally-No defects in the books of account-No disallowance warranted without bringing on record any other evidence to prove that the purchases made by assessee were not genuine-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed. [S.68]
PCIT v. SRS Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (Bom.) (HC).(UR)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Gift from third parties-Genuineness of gifts had not been proved-Preponderance of probability-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 260A]
Mohit Agarwal v. CIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 550 (All)(HC)
S. 43A : Rate of exchange-Foreign currency –Capital or revenue-Tribunal allowed foreign exchange losses towards the loan taken for acquisition of assets within India-However, Tribunal failed to analyze whether the expenditure in question could not be regarded as capital expenditure-Matter was to be remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration. [S. 37(1), 260A].
PCIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2024) 469 ITR 181 /301 Taxman 173/341 CTR 919 / 244 DTR 209 (Bom)(HC)
S. 40A(9) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Bonus to employees-Business expenditure-Contribution to employees welfare trust-Community services-Payments under a Memorandum of Settlement with the trade union-Expenditure not covered by Section 30 to Section 36, and expenditure made for purposes of business shall be allowed as business expenditure. [S. 37(1), 30 to 36]
CIT v. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd.[2024] 165 taxmann.com 227 (Bom)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Professional and consultancy charges-Enduring nature, expenditure is capital in nature-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S.260A]
Inditrade Capital Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 301 Taxman 638 (Ker.)(HC)
S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Compensation-Breach of contract-Real estate and land development-Agreement entered into by managing partner in his individual capacity-Terms and Conditions of the agreement relevant-Arbitral Award-Not allowable as business expenditure. [S. 145, 260A, Indian Partnership Act, 1932, S.14]
PCIT v. Canara Housing Development Company (2024) 301 Taxman 377 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Canara Housing Development Company v. JCIT (2017) 165 ITD 76 (Bang)(Trib) is reversed
S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Banking business –Capital or revenue-Stock in trade-Broken period interest paid on the purchase of securities is revenue expenditure since securities constitute stock-in-trade. [S. 145, 260A]
CIT v. State of Hyderabad (No. 1) [2024] 469 ITR 316 (Telangana)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign Exchange losses towards loan in nature of external commercial borrowings for acquisition of assets from outside India and from within India-The Tribunal failed to look at substance of expenditure and erroneously interpreted the provisions of Section 43A-Matter remanded back to the Tribunal for an effective adjudication of specific issue.[S.43A, 254(1), 260A]
PCIT v. Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 173 (Bom)(HC)
S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directed to decide the issue on disallowance of deduction claimed on debenture resumption within 3 months as matter pertains to year 1997-98-Revenue has accepted the finding of Tribunal in assessee’s own case in previous years regarding disallowance of expenses on entertainment expenditure and expenses related to school the same question of law cannot be raised in a subsequent year. [S. 40A (9), S. 246A, 260A].
PCIT v. Tata Chemical Ltd (No. 1) [2024] 469 ITR 250 / 162 taxmann.com 11 (Bom)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expenses for inviting NRIs to open deposits in its Indian branches-Allowable as business expenditure. [S.260A]
DIT v. ANZ Grindlays Bank (2024) 301 Taxman 599 (Delhi)(HC)