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. 45(3) : Capital gains – Transfer of capital asset to firm –Capital contribution —Amount recorded in books of account of firm deemed to be full value of consideration — Deeming fiction provided in S. 50C cannot be extended to compute full value — One deeming section cannot be extended by importing another deeming section [ S.45, 48 50C]

ACIT v. Amartara P. Ltd. (2020) 78 ITR 46 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S.45: Capital gains — Long-term capital gains —Allotment letter – – Subsequent letter and premises ownership agreement — Improvement in rights which already created — Date of acquisition of right not date of registration but date of allotment letter — Holding of property more than 36 months — Assessable as long term capital gains – Entitled to Indexation benefit —Entitled to exemption on reinvestment in new flat [ S. 2(42A),54 , 54F ]

Raju Dayal Sahani v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 35 ( SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 45 : Capital gains – Long-term capital gains — Transfer of land — Fair market value —As on 1-4 1981 was directed to be adopted .

Catherene Thomas (Smt.) v . ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 18 (SN)( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – General remark that payment made in cash due to business exigencies is held to be not acceptable.[ R.6DD ]

Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. v JCIT (2020) 78 ITR 29(SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Professional fees-Recipient paying tax on payment made – Disallowance is held to be not justified .

Trans Freight Containers Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 5 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Failure to deduct tax on interest paid on loan- Recipient had declared the interest in the return- The assessee is directed to substantiate that recipient has shown the interest in his return. [ S.194A, 201(IA) ]

Barnala Steel Industries Ltd. v JCIT (2020) 78 ITR 29(SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Defective goods – Addition based on presumptions and suspicions- Held to be not justified – Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) -Power of enhancement- Enhancement of assessment had to be considered in the context of each issue raised in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). [ S.251(2) ]

Shankar Gupta v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 76 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Real estate development — Selling and administrative costs — Selling expenses – Revenue expenses after setting up of business is held to be allowable although revenue was not yet earned —Accounting Standard 7 .

Pragnya Crest Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 43 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Payment to contractors benevolent Fund —Allowable subject to verification -Penalty- Delayed contract – Assessing Officer is directed to verify nature of default . 37(1) Explanation ]

Pampamaheshwar Ravindranath v. ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 68 (SN) ( Bang) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Labour charges — Road construction business -Some labour contractors not having complete knowledge of contract and looked after by their husbands — Disallowance is not justified .

Dwarkesh Infrastructure P. Ltd. Dy. CIT (2020) 78 ITR 33 (SN) ( Ahd) (Trib)