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. 68 : Cash credits -Shares -Unsecured loans – Assessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders- Deletion of addition is held to be justified .

PCIT v. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 390 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335 (SC)

S.45: Capital gains- Transfer- Development agreement not registered- General Power of attorney- Possession of property was given to the developer for specific purposes to develop the property- The development agreement clearly provides that nothing contained in the agreement shall be construed as grant of possession in part performance of the agreement under S. 2(47)(v), and 2(47)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly addition of Rs 55 crores as full value of consideration for computing the capital gains is rightly deleted by the Tribunal – Taxability will be examined in the year in which the transfer of land as stock in trade has taken place and also value at that point of time will be examined independently . [ S.2(47)(v), 2(47)(vi) 45(2) ]

PCIT v. Fardeen Khan L/H Late Firoz Khan ( 2018) 169 DTR 209/ 304 CTR 299/258 Taxman 348 /( 2019) 411 ITR 533 ( Bom)(HC)

S. 45: Capital gains- Individual or HUF- Sale deed was executed in individual capacity and PAN of the individual-Sale consideration was also not deposited in the HUF’ Bank account-Assessing the capital gains in the assessment of the assessee is held to be justified [ S.4 ]

Janak Kanakbhai Trivedi v. ITO (2018) 257 Taxman 367 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage – Selling expenses which consisted of target incentives to distributors -Not liable to deduct tax at source- No disallowance can be made .[ S.194H ]

PCIT v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 590 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Contractors – Purchase of packing material- Right of ownership of packing material was only transferred to assessee only when it was purchased from suppliers -Not liable to deduct tax at source –No disallowance can be made . [ S.194C ]

PCIT v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 590 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Reimbursement of lease rent charges – Not liable to deduct tax at source -Provision for contingent liability for which bills were not received during year under consideration and TDS was deducted as and when final bills were received – No disallowance can be made .[ S.194I ,

PCIT v. Sanghi Infrastructure Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 371 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Interest- Payment for delayed allotment of land by Housing Corp. is not interest since there was neither any borrowing of money nor was there incurring of debt on part of assessee hence not liable to deduct tax at source-No disallowance can be made [ S.2(28A), 194A]

PCIT v. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ( 2018) 257 Taxman 570 / ( 2019) 306 CTR 601/ 173 DTR 377/ 413 ITR 82 ( Cal) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd ( 2019) 263 Taxman 237 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Capital or revenue -Non-compete fee for five years – Allowable as revenue expenditure .

Asianet Communications Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 706 / 257 Taxman 473 /( 2019) 175 DTR 202 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Capital or revenue-Amount paid to associate company, (G4S) for providing expert advisory and other security related services and knowhow inter-alia including use of trademarks -Not allowable as business expenditure as the amount was not incurred for wholly and exclusively for business purposes ,as the assessee has not led any evidence to establish the manner in which the technical know-how as acquired from G4S had been used in its business.

Monitron Security (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 351 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt – Failure of subscribers of chit fund to make payment of their instalments is allowable as bad debt.

CIT v. Shriram Chits & Investments (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 395 /( 2019) 410 ITR 10(Mad.)(HC)