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. 40(b)(ii) : Amounts not deductible–Partner–Remuneration-Partnership Deed mentioning maximum amount payable but payment to individual partner left undecided-Payments to be decided mutually between them- No disallowance made in preceding years-Principle of consistency applied. [S. 40(b)(v)]

Radius Industries v. ACIT (2019) 75 ITR 547 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident– Fees for Technical Services–Commission agents providing services outside India-Commission payments to non-residents not be treated as income deemed to accrue or arise in India-No disallowance could be made.

DCIT v. Tecnotree Convergence Ltd. (2019) 75 ITR 505/( 2020) 205 TTJ 561 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident– Royalty-Payment for purchase of copyrighted software-Not royalty- ‘Royalty’ originally defined in double taxation avoidance agreement not amended-Assessee is not liable to deduct tax for payments made for purchase of off-the-shelf software. [S. 9(1)(vi), 195]

Eaton Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 75 ITR 675 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident– Interest – Royalty-Fes for technical services-DTAA-India-Switzerland. [S.9(1)(vi), 195, Art.14]

Poddar Pigments Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 174 DTR 177 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business Expenditure–Advertisement expenses-Assessee not confronted with fact that notices to parties to whom expenses claimed to have been paid returned unserved-Matter Remanded–AO to decide afresh after confronting assessee and after hearing assessee.

Anurag Rastogi v. ITO (2019) 75 ITR 8 (Luck.)(Trib.)

S. 37(i) : Business Expenditure-Provisions for gratuity and leave encashment made with reasonable certainty on basis of independent actuarial valuation same is allowable. [S. 145]

Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 76 ITR 44 (SN) (Cochin)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Not commenced business operations-lease rentals is allowed to be set off against lease rentals paid as well as excess expenditure allowable for capitalization.

ACIT v. Central Park Infrastructure Development P. Ltd. (2019) 76 ITR 76 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Accrual of liability-Payment of countervailing duty on imported goods-Claim to refund not a ground for treating liability as not accrued-Liability is held to be allowable as deduction. [S. 145]

Trust Marketing v. ACIT (2019)76 ITR 119 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Self made vouchers-Ad hoc disallowance is not justified. [S. 145]

Swastik Oil Industries v. Dy. CIT (2019)76 ITR 392 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-CSR expenditure-Disallowance in lieu of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1)-No retrospective effect of Explanation 2-CSR Expenditure allowed.

M. P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 57 CCH 502 / 76 ITR 42 (SN) (Indore)(Trib.)