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(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Project competition method- Provision for expenses–When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure–Not liable to deduct tax at source–No disallowance can be made. [S. 145]
Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 217/ 175 ITD 671/ 178 DTR 5 /199 TTJ 1003(Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident–Purchase of bearings–Not liable to deduct tax at source –No disallowances can be made-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 195, Art. 26(3)]
ITO v. FIlco Trade Centre (2019) 69 ITR 99 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Provision for salary-Sixth Pay Commission -liability on account of payment of revised enhanced salary had neither accrued nor crystallized during relevant assessment year, impugned- Provision made is not allowable as deduction.[S. 145]
Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. ACIT ( 2019) 174 ITD 785 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 28(i) : Business loss- Actor -Advance of money to production house -Write off of advances as non recoverable – Film was not successful- Loss is allowable as business loss or as business expenditure. [S. 37(1)]
Jackie Shroff v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 770/ 197 TTJ 568 / 174 DTR 161(Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions–On same of facts exemption was granted earlier years -Denial of exemption is held to be not valid – Payment to trustee- No evidence to show that the payment was excessive or unreasonable -Denial of exemption is not proper. [S.11, 12A, 13(1)(c)(d)]
Apne Aap Women Worldwide (India) Trust v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 84/175 ITD 381/ 177 DTR 193 / 199 TTJ 447 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Activities of publication of newspaper and complementary publication to provide information regarding Government welfare schemes to general public-Not carrying on activity in nature of trade or commerce- Eligible exemption. [S. 2(15), 10 (23C(iv)]
Madhya Pradesh Madhyam v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 751/ 198 TTJ 949/ 178 DTR 180 (Indore) (Trib.)
S. 80IA :Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development- Commission agent of BSNL- Providing basic telecommunication services as defined u/s 2(k) of TRAI Act, 1997 to its customers- Entitled to deduction [ S.80IA(4) (ii), Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 and TRAI Act, 1997]
Sabdhagiri Telecom v. ITO (2019) 173 DTR 100 / 306 CTR 300 (Mad)( HC)
S.37(1): Business expenditure – Capital or revenue -Sub -lease -Payment made to vacate the premises – Through negotiation assessee acquired some kind of an enduring right of possession over occupied area of said premises surrendered to them by those occupants—It had incidents of permanence— Expenditure is capital in nature .
United Spirits Ltd v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 458 / (2019) 173 DTR 315 / 306 CTR 484/(2020) 421 ITR 300 (Cal)(HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – illegal Recovery – Strictures against DCIT- Adjustment of refund -High Court was not justified in its remarks against the DCIT and in issuing directions that (i) ‘deadwood’ should be weeded out (ii) personal costs of Rs. 1.5 lakh should be imposed (iii) adverse entry should be made in the Annual Confidential Report (iv) Denial of promotion etc. The directions were wholly unnecessary to the lis before the Court & are expunged [ S.234]
Sanjay Jain v. Nu Tech Corporate Service Ltd. (SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial: Nu-Tech Corporates Ltd v ,ITO ( 2018) 259 Taxman 183 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org
S. 80HH :Newly established industrial undertakings –Income -Profits and gains-Deduction has to be computed on the profits and gains without deducting therefrom ‘depreciation’ and ‘investment allowance’ & not from income as computed under the Act. S. 80AB is prospective. [ S.80AB, 80I]
Vijay Industries v. CIT( 2019) 402 ITR 1/ 175 DTR 321/ 307 CTR 486 / 264 Taxman 265 (SC), www.itatonline.orgEditorial: Vijay Industries v. CIT ( 2004)270 ITR 175/ 190 CTR 90 (Raj) (HC)