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. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Legal settlement expenses– Capacity as manging director of the company-Not allowable as business expenditure of the company in his capacity as an advocate against professional income.

Satinder Kapur. v. ACIT (2019) 110 taxmann.com 24/ 266 Taxman 378 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed; Satinder Kapur v. ACIT (2019) 266 Taxman 377 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Social responsibility-Agreement with State Government to construct houses for poor people affected by floods-Held to be allowable on commercial expediency.

Kanhaiyalal Dudheria v JCIT (2019) 418 ITR 410 / 310 CTR 617 / 182 DTR 57/( 2020) 269 Taxman 170 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expenditure on higher education of daughter of Director-Higher education is not related to business of the appellant company–Not allowable as deduction.

JBM Industries Ltd v. DCIT (2019) 418 ITR 502/ 182 DTR 457 / 267 Taxman 411 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Insurance premium on purchase of new car-Held to be revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Commission paid to directors-Allowed in earlier years-Principle of consistency is followed– Appeal of revenue is dismissed.

PCIT v. Shah Virchand Govanji Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Construction business– Expenditure incurred subsequent sale of building–Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 145]

CIT v. Oberon Edifices & Estates (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 taxman 118/311 CTR 815 / 184 DTR 56 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Non-compete fee-Agreement was only for 18 months-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Computer Age Management Services (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 taxman 146 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-leased assets–Entitle to depreciation–Less had admitted that the transaction were merely paper transaction – Question of fact. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Ushdev International Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 22 / 266 Taxman 372 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Ushdev International Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 371 (SC)/ (2019) 416 ITR 128 (St.)(SC) .

S. 32 : Depreciation–Residential flats–Accommodation of employees-Entitle for higher rate of depreciation.

CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 406 /(2020) 190 DTR 158(Mad.)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Higher rate of depreciation-Motor vehicles-Buses were being run on hire-Entitle for higher rate of depreciation.

PCIT v. Taj Travels (P.) Ltd. (2019) 267 taxman 124 (P & H) (HC)