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. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Interest paid on funds borrowed for the purpose of business activities are allowed as business expenditure/revenue expenditure. [S. 37(1)]
Gaursons Realty P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2019) 69 ITR 11(SN) (Delhi.)(Trib.)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Additional depreciation–S. 32(1)(iia) would not restrain the assessee from claiming the balance of the benefit of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year. [S. 32(1)(iia)]
JCIT v. J. K. Cement Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 26 (SN) (Luck.)(Trib.)
S. 32 : Depreciation–Assessee took over cement undertaking as a going concern for purchase consideration and also issue of shares –AO disallowed depreciation to the extent of shares issued by debiting the goodwill account–Held that, even if the consideration in the form of shares was paid for purchase of goodwill, this payment could be considered as payment for acquiring brands of the demerged company, on which depreciation was allowable.
JCIT v. J. K. Cement Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 26 (SN) (Luck.)(Trib.)
S. 28(i) : Business income – Income from house property – Assessee is not merely letting out its premises for warehousing but were doing complex commercial activity hence to be treated as business income. [S. 22]
Grand Wood Works and Saw Mills v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 3 (SN.) (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Transfer pricing adjustment-Income received outside India for the services rendered outside India shall not be taxable in India –actual profit attributable to India being a factual issue restored to the Assessing Officer to examine assessee’s claim. [S.92C]
Fox International Channel Asia Pacific Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) (2019) 175 DTR 233/ 198 TTJ 0377 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Interest subsidy given for the purpose of payment of loan acquired for the acquisition of capital asset is capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]
JCIT v. J. K. Cement Ltd. (2019) 69 ITR 26(SN) (Luck.)(Trib.)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)- 20% of the disputed demand – Consideration is not received cannot be a ground for lifting the rigor of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the disputed tax pending in appeal . [ S. 220(6)]
Kalpana Ashwin Shah v. ACIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S. 80IB(10): Housing project – Stay of judgement in CIT v. Global Reality(2015) 379 ITR 107 (MP) where it was held that issuance of completion certificate, after the cut off date by the Local Authority but, mentioning the date of completion of project before the cut -off date, does not satisfy the condition specified in clause (a) of Section 80IB (10) read with Explanation (ii) thereunder hence not entitle to exemption . [ S.80IB(10)(a) ]
Global Estate v. CIT ( 2020 ) 114 taxman .com 96 (SC), www.itatonline.org
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Deposit -Subscription receipt -The primary liability and onus is on the Dept to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed-.Deposits collected by a finance company are capital receipts and not revenue receipts-.The fact that the deposits are credited to the profit and loss account is irrelevant-.The true nature of the receipts have to be seen and not the entry in the books of account .[ S.145 ]
Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT( 2019) 416 ITR 1/ 265 Taxman 413/ 309 CTR 321/180 DTR 97 (SC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial : From the judgement in CIT v Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd ( 2006) 282 ITR 209/ 204 CTR 198 (Cal) (HC)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Transit mixer mounted on vehicle eligible for higher rate of depreciation-Trucks on which said RMC was mounted for transporting it to construction site –Not eligible for higher depreciation. [S. 32(1)(iia)]
Innovative Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 868 / 182 DTR 20 (Ahd.)(Trib.)