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. 69 : Unexplained investments-Use of five credit cards-Failure to prove credit entries–Addition is held to be valid. [S. 131, 260A]

Sunil Balasubramaniam Shankar. v. ITO (2019) 418 ITR 496 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Peak credit theory–Hawala transactions-Money laundering can be for oneself-Refusal to divulge details of persons from whom money was distributed–Entire amount to be added as income on basis of peak credit theory-Estimation of commission again at 2% as alleged commission shall be only on the amounts deposited, other than the incremental peak credit adopted for each year-Appeal is dismissed. [S. 69, 69A]

K. P. Abdul Majeed. v. ACIT (2019) 267 taxman 151 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-VDIS-Declaration of diamond jewellery-Sale of items after smelting – Weight of gold not disputed-Addition as cash credit is held to be not justified – Assessable as capital gains. [S. 45, VDIS 1997, S. 65]

Bhurat Sunilkumar (HUF) v. ITO (2019) 267 taxman 139/ 311 CTR 615/ 183 DTR 82 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains–Computation-Valuation-Valuation adopted for wealth tax is directed to be adopted for the purpose of computing capital gain-Matter remanded. [S. 45]

K.E.M.I. Kwaja Mohideen. v. ITO (2019) 267 taxman 126 (Mad.) (HC)

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)