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. 80JJAA : Employment of new workmen – Exemption cannot be denied when the employees fulfilled the condition of being employed for 300 days for the year under consideration , even though such employees do not fulfil the condition of being employed for 300 days in the immediately preceding assessment year .

Tata Elxsi Ltd v. JCIT ( 2021) BCAJ- January – P 46 ( Bang) (Trib)

S. 50 : Capital gains – Depreciable assets – Block of assets – Expenditure incurred on account of stamp duty , registration charges and society transfer fee , as per contractual terms is an allowable expenditure [ S.45, 50(1)(i) ]

DCIT v. B.E.Billimoria & Co Ltd ( 2021 ) BCAJ-January -P 48 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Once business income is offered on the presumption taxation , separate addition cannot be made as cash credits [ S.68 ]

Dineshkumar Verma v .ITI ( 2021 ) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P 123 ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation- Presumptive taxation is not applicable to interest and remuneration received by a partnership firm [ S.28(v), 40(b) ]

AnandKumar v .ACIT ( 2021) The Chamber’s Journal – January -P 113 ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision made for site restoration is a contingent liability – Allowable as deduction on the principle of commercial expediency .[ S.145 ]

Vedanta Ltd v. JCIT ( 2021 ) BCAJ-January P. 58 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Discount in issue of ESOP is an allowable deduction – Contingent liability .[S.4, 143(3) 145, Companies Act , 1956 , S. 2(15A) ]

CIT v. Bicon Ltd ( 2021) The Chamber’s Journal – January – P 115 ( Karn) (HC)

Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation -Natural Justice – There is a clear distinction between cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principle

State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh (SC), www.itatonline.org

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Second application – No bar for filing second application [ S. 245D(1), 245K(2), Art , 226 ]

CIT v. Adhiparasakhi Charitable Medical Educational Cultural Trust ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – December – P. 167 /Trust (2020) 121 taxmann.com 24/ (2021) 2021] 277 Taxman 333 (Mad) (HC) . ( Mad ) (HC)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – HSBC Bank -Black Money- Burden is on revenue to prove that money belongs to the assessee- Mere holding a joint bank account does not mean that the money belongs to the assessee- Addition is deleted [ S.69A ]

Kamal Galani v. ACIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 273/ 207 TTJ 1049 (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org