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.37(1): Business expenditure- Lease hold premises – Repairs and maintenance – Order of CIT(A) lacked quasi -Judicial investigation and analysis fair to both the assessee as well as the department- Repair and maintenance expenses and business promotion expenses- Matter was remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication .

Dy CIT v. Amar Brothers Global P. Ltd (2018) 64 ITR 69 (SN)( Lucknow) ( Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital – Own funds more than investment- Disallowance of interest cannot be made.

CIT v. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 689 (Mum) (Trib)

S.32: Depreciation — Additional depreciation — Lab Equipment and Electrical Items is essential for manufacturing process which is entitled to additional depreciation [ S.32(1)(iii) ]

CIT v. Ahmedabad Strips P. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 683 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 32 : Depreciation -Motor Car — Company purchasing car in name of its manager which is used for the purpose of its business is entitle to depreciation.

CIT v. Ahmedabad Strips P. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 683 (Ahd) (Trib)

S.28(i):Business loss — Fluctuation in foreign exchange loss — Derivative Contracts —Actual contract for sale of Merchandise is not speculative transaction is deductible.[ S.43(5) ]

Toshiba Embedded Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 675 (Bang) (Trib)

S.28(1): Business loss — Forward and derivative contracts — gains on account of foreign exchange difference — Marked to Market Loss-Matter remanded for actual verification of entries in the books of account . [ S.37(1) ]

CIT v. Kiran Gems Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 689 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Communication charges and travelling and conveyance expenses is to be excludible both from export turnover and total turnover – Interest earned on fixed deposits is part of business income which is deductible.

Toshiba Embedded Software (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 64 ITR 675 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 275 : Penalty – Bar of limitation – Takes or accepts any loan or deposit – Repayment of loan or deposit – Limitation period of six months to be reckoned from the end of month initiation of the penalty proceedings by JCIT and not from the date of assessment order – Penalty u/s2771D is independent under assessment .-JCIT is only authority competent to initiate proceedings and impose penalty – Not barred by limitation .[ S. 269SS, 269T,271D, 271E ]

Nitin Agrawal v. JCIT ( 2018) 302 CTR 484 / 166 DTR 27/ ( 2019) 212 ITR 309 ( MP) (HC)

S.260A: Appeal – – High Court – Inter department litigation-Clearance from the Committee on dispute – Order of High Court directing the CIT to approach the High Powered Committee for clearance of Committee on Dispute for filing appeal before the High court is set aside and matter remanded to High Court for deciding the appeal on merits .

CIT v. Doordarshan Commercial Services ( 2018) 166 DTR 425/ 255 Taxman 34/303 CTR 129 (SC)

S. 80HHC : Export business – Total turn over – Excise duty-Excise duty paid by assessee was to be excluded from the total turnover for purpose of computation of deduction .

Standard Batteries Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 166 DTR 289 / 255 Taxman 380/ 304 CTR 1(Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org