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 : Capital gains – Business income – Expenditure – Taxable as capital gains and not as business income .[ S.2(13) ,28(i) , 48 ]

Anil Dye Chem Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Asst. CIT (2020)79 ITR 30 (SN) (Trib) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 44AD :Presumptive taxation-Cash flow statement – Most of applications of income directly linked to business of assessee – Addition not warranted

Honey Rahulan (Smt.) v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 41 (SN) ( Cochin ) (Trib)

S. 40(b)(iv) : Amounts not deductible – Partner – Interest -Partners Declaring interest in their returns and assessments completed in their hands — Double taxation of same income both in hands of partners as well as firm – Interest payment is held to be allowable .

Sangeeth Nursing Home v .ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 36 (SN)( Cochin) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Self made vouchers – Ad-hoc disallowance of 15% of expenditure is based on surmises and conjectures – Held to be not valid .

Vijaya Bhavani Constructions P. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 79 ITR 24( SN) (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Disallowance is restricted to 10 % as against 20% disallowance affirmed by the CIT (A) .

R. N. Sahoo v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 20 ( SN) (Cuttack) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Onus on assessee to establish that interest-bearing loan not used to extend interest-free loan — Matter remanded.

R. N. Sahoo v Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 20 ( SN) (Cuttack) (Trib)

S.28(i): Business Loss — Import duty —Non-payment of duty would have resulted in substantial losses for assessee and damaged reputation in market — Loss is allowable as business Loss out of commercial expediency .[ S.37(i) ]

Mihir Bipin Parekh v. Dy. CIT (2020) 79 ITR 5 ( SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Not recording of satisfaction – No disallowance could be made- Period during which the lockdown was in force shall stand excluded for the purpose of working out the time limit for pronouncement of orders, as envisaged in rule 34(5) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 . .[ . S.254(1), R.8D ]

S. K. Minerals Handling P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 79 ITR 18 (SN)(Cuttack ) (Trib)

S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions –Excess amount charged refunded – Neither a case of violation or diversion of fund – Entitle to exemption -Application of income- Normal commercial principle should be applied [ S.11, 12A, 13(1)( c ), 13(2)(g), 144, 145 ]

Dy. CIT (E) v Cargo Handling Private Workers Pool Trust (2020)79 38 ITR (SN)( Vishakha (Trib)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Registered address- Matter remanded [ S.80G]

Awas Nivas Foundation v. ITO (2020)79 ITR 26 (SN)( Bang) (Trib)