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. 43A : Rate of exchange-Foreign currency-Provisions are applicable for loss arising on foreign exchange fluctuations only where the capital assets are acquired from outside India-Assets were purchased in India-Loss on foreign exchange is allowable as deduction. [S. 37(1)]

DCIT v. Terex India Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 71 ITR 259 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-waiver of loan taken by assessee for business purposes-amount returned to profit and loss account-Assessable as business income. [S. (24), 28(iv)]

ITO v. Team Front Line Ltd. (2019) 73 ITR 9 (Coch.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payment to film distributors for purchase of films for exhibition-Not liable to deduct tax at source-No disallowances can be made. [S. 9(1)(vi), 194J]

ITO v. Eylex Films Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 71 ITR 332 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payments liable to deduction of tax at source-Brand charges-Whether recipient of brand charges paid taxes-Assessing officer to verify documents filed by assesse-Matter remanded.

Amit Jindal v. Dy. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 545 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue–Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (DTT) technology subscription-Payment for utilizing brand and technology not being made for acquiring any asset of enduring benefit should be allowed as a revenue expenditure.

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 71 ITR 301/ 179 ITD 78/( 2020) 196 DTR 349/ 208 TTJ 956 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Foreign exchange fluctuation loss—department accepting that assessee had commenced its business in earlier year—Denial of claim on reason that no business commenced for instant year not justified.

Dy. CIT v. Albasta Wholesale Services Ltd (2019) 70 ITR 504 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Provision for warranty-Not justified in disallowing the expenses.

Tata Autocomp Hendrickson Suspensions Pvt. Ltd. v. DY. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 712 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Labour charges—All details of labourers including addresses and permanent account numbers available with authorities but not verified—Assessee deducting tax at source from payment of labour charges to labourers—late deduction of tax at source—Not a basis for making disallowance.

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd. v. DY. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 629 (Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Prior period expenditure— Invoice received and payment made in April 2009—Amount crystallized during year cannot be treated as prior period item.

Dy.CIT v. Metso Minerals (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 70 ITR 655 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure—Expenditure on purchase of Indian premier league cricket match tickets to distribute amongst long standing customers to improve its business relations—akin to distribution of gifts or articles on special occasions to customers —Deductible.

EPE Process Filters And Accumulators Pvt. Ltd. v. DyCIT (2019) 70 ITR 586 (Hyd.)(Trib.)