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-Expenditure incurred by assessee for providing training to persons through Apparel Training & Development Centre in form of assistance of Rs. 2,000/- per trainee was in category of corporate social responsibility (CSR) was held not allowable unless and until expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business of assessee.
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. (2018) 195 TTJ 35 (Jaipur) (Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Designing and exhibition of player outfits —Held to be revenue expenditure.
Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / ( 2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Security charges—visits of actors, celebrities and VIPs was part of strategic planning by assessee for generating higher revenues—Held to be allowable business expenditure.
Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / (2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Coaching services–Held to be allowable as business expenditure.
Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / ( 2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Security services for stadium—Payment of Rs. 75 lac was made by assessee to Kolkata Police Welfare fund, not by its choice, but as per directions of CAB who was responsible to arrange for security in stadium at time of staging of matches by assessee –Held to be allowable business expenditure.
Knight Riders Sports P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / (2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Franchise fee- For participation in league–Held to be revenue expenditure- When no match of IPL Season-2 was played till 31.03.2009, no expenditure in respect of Franchise fee accrued at all during year under consideration—Thus, it could not be held as revenue expenditure in hands of assessee during year under consideration [S. 145]
Knight Riders Sports Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2017) 51 CCH 591 / (2018) 193 TTJ 313 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Advance to group concerns out of its own funds–Commercial needs-Disallowance of interest is held to be not justified.
Scrabble Entertainment Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 51 / 193 TTJ 418 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 35DD : Amortisation of expenditure–Amalgamation–Demerger- Travelling expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of scheme of demerger is entitled for deduction.
Onprocess Technology India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 292/(2019) 179 DTR 299 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 28(i) : Business income–Income from house property- ware housing-Exploitation of commercial assets–Assessable as business income. [S. 22]
Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2018) 170 DTR 377 / 195 TTJ 919 (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Sub-section (2) of section 14A does not authorize or empower AO to apply prescribed method irrespective of nature of claim made by assessee, AO has to first consider correctness of claim of assessee having regard to accounts of assessee. [R. 8D]
Morgan Stanley Investment Management (P) LTD. v. DCIT(2017) 160 DTR 19/ ( 2018) 191 TTJ 365 (Mum.) (Trib.)