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. 41(1) :Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability -Non-payment of outstanding liability which is admitted and acknowledged as due and payable cannot be assessed as remission or cessation of liability.
PCIT v. New World Synthetics Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 189 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Factory was situated in backward area and payments to transporters had to be made in cash because such persons were not having banking facility around factory area Freight and cartage payments to drivers-Held to be allowable as deduction .[ R.6DD ]
PCIT v. Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. (2018) 97 taxmann.com 513/ 258 Taxman 131 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed. PCIT v. Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 130 (SC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Foreign education and training expenses of a partner –Held to be allowable as business expenditure as the post graduate course underwent was directly related to profession carried on by firm – Professional fee received by firm had substantially increased after completion of post graduate degree by said partner, several important contracts were secured by firm, which firm attributed to educational qualification and expertise acquired by said partner abroad .
Aswathanarayana & Eswara v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 210 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue- Manufacture of PVC and caustic soda and business of shipping , starting textile business- Abandoned project – Manufacture of New venture was managed from common funds, control over all business units and there was unity of control, it could not be said that pre-operative expenditure was incurred on a new line of business- Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 258 Taxman 297/ ( 2019) 412 ITR 323 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Sales incentive was payable only after and when dealers had met sales figures from 1-4-2003 to 30-06-2004 in this period – Expenditure cannot be disallowed on the ground that it pertaining to earlier year.[ S.145]
PCIT v. Escorts Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 402 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision for medical benefit of its employees post retirement –Held to be allowable.
CIT v. Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 313 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Provision for medical benefit of its employees post retirement –Held to be allowable.
CIT v. Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 313 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Security charges-merely for non filing of confirmation disallowances cannot be made-Order of Tribunal is affirmed .
CIT v. Eveready Industries (India) Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 313 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- In view of fact that advanced technology software become obsolete within short intervals-Expenditure incurred on software expenses is held to be revenue expenditure.
CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 193/ 304 CTR 798/ 170 DTR 270 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Commission payments made to agents who procured orders and themselves were made liable to recover price of goods sold by them – Held to be allowable as deduction.
Landis + GYR Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 253 (Cal) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is accepted ; CIT v. Landis + GYR Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 60 (SC)