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. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Project was completed before March 31, 2009-Two building project was handed over to land lord for further development-Allowing the claim is exemption is held to be justified.
PCIT v. Sadhana Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 561 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Telecommunication services- Income from sharing fibre cables and cell-sites was income by way of leasing-Late fees and reimbursement of cheque dishonour charges received from parties-Eligible for deduction. [S. 80IA(2A)]
CIT v. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 276/ 183 DTR 277 / 311 CTR 588 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 68 : Cash credits–Peak addition-Hawala transaction-Money laundering can also be for oneself-Information from Enforcement Directorate—Refusing to own up accounts- Burden is not discharged–Addition is held to be justified. [S. 69, 69A]
K. P. Abdul Majeed v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 531 / 180 DTR 249 / 310 CTR 261(Ker.)(HC)
S. 68 : Cash credits—Share application money—Received by cheques- Details furnished–Burden is discharged-Failure by department to investigate identity of shareholders and genuineness of transactions—Addition is held to be not justified.
CIT v. Sidhi Vinayak Metcon Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 402 (Jharkhand) (HC)
S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source- Rejection of Books of account-Estimation of profit @ 8% of turnover—No disallowance can be made u/s. 40 of the Act. [S. 145(3)]
ACIT v. Salauddin. (2019) 414 ITR 335 (Pat.)(HC)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Loan to sister concern from non –interest bearing funds–No disallowance can be made.
CIT v. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 344 / 183 DTR 302/ 266 Taxman 414/ 311 CTR 802(Ker.)(HC)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income–Satisfaction-AO cannot disallow the expenditure far in excess of what has been disallowed, without demonstrating how the working of the assessee is wrong. [R. 8D]
CIT v. DSP Adiko Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 555 (Bom.) (HC) CIT v. DSP HMK Holdings P. Ltd (2019) 414 ITR 555 (Bom.)(HC)