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. 92CA : Transfer pricing-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses-No international transaction beyond agreed reimbursement-Adjustment deleted-Comparables-Functionally dissimilar companies to be excluded-Working capital adjustment-DRP directions binding-Adjustment to be allowed-Royalty-Transactional Net Margin Method accepted-Separate benchmarking under CUP not permissible-Salary of expatriate employees-Secondment-No evidence of services rendered to parent company-Disallowance deleted.[S.37(1), 92C, 144C]
Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 543 (Trib.)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Advertisement, Marketing and Promotion (AMP) expenses-Commission to distributors not AMP expenditure-Addition deleted. [S. 92CA]
Amway India Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC (2025) 127 ITR 642 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 80-IA : Industrial undertaking-Deduction-To be allowed from gross total income-Order of CIT(A) to allow deduction after verification of claim was held to be proper. [S. 143(3)]
Geecee Ventures Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 371 / 174 taxmann.com 1285 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 80G : Donation-Charitable institution-Registration-Application filed under wrong clause-Technical error not fatal-Registration directed.[S. 12AA, 80G(5)(vi)]
Society for Technology Business Incubator v. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 719 (Chd.)(Trib.)
S. 80G: Donation-Corporate Social Responsibility expenditure-Eligible donation-Deduction allowable-Receipts not produced-Matter remanded for verification.[S. 37(1)]
Amway India Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC (2025) 127 ITR 642 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Burden of proving taxability lies on Revenue-Assessee cannot be called upon to prove a negative-Addition deleted.[S. 145]
Ankit Gems P. Ltd. v. Circle 5(1)(1) (2025) 127 ITR 265 / 178 taxmann.com 454 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Business expenditure-Bogus purchases-Addition based solely on third-party statements without cross-examination-Not sustainable-Onus discharged by assessee-Burden shifts to Revenue-Addition deleted-Sales accepted-Entire purchases cannot be disallowed-No further addition warranted. [S. 37(1), 142(1), 147, 148]
Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain v. Dy. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 352 / 180 taxmann.com 308 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Search assessment-Unexplained cash expenditure-Assessee failed to establish expenditure incurred on behalf of production house-Addition confirmed.[S.69A, 132, 132(4)]
Usha Satish Salvi v. Asst. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 452 (Mum.)(Trib.)
69C : Unexplained expenditure-Computer printouts seized from accountant-No corroborative evidence-Addition deleted-Protective addition-Cash found with accountant-Accountant owning cash-Addition in assessee’s hands not permissible.
Dy. CIT v. DSG Papers (P.) Ltd. (2025) 127 ITR 410 (Chd.)(Trib.)
S. 69A: Unexplained money-Unaccounted production-Estimation based on variation in electricity consumption-No evidence of unaccounted purchases or sales-Addition deleted.[S. 132]
Rosha Alloys P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 127 ITR 76 / 175 taxmann.com 622 (Chd.)(Trib.)