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 – Capital was borrowed for acquisition of fixed assets and only a part of assets were put to use- Interest was to be allowed only to the extent the assets were operational during the current year.
ACIT v. Pasadensa Foods Ltd. (2018) 163 DTR 243 (Delhi)( Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii):Interest on borrowed capital-Finance Charges- Not deductible as these expenses were not relatable to the main business activity of the assessee. [S. 57(iii)]
Asia Investments Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 535 / 193 TTJ 214 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(ii) : Interest on borrowed capital- Utilized for purchase of shares- Allowable as deduction.
Abhinand Investment Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 192 TTJ 51 (UO) (Kol.) (Trib.)
S.28(i): Business income- Agricultural income – Where the agricultural activities were carried out by the farmers mere supervision by the Assessee without carrying basic operation would not qualify as agricultural activities and accordingly income of the Assessee from processing, packing and sale of various seeds procured from farmers was liable to be treated as business income and not agricultural income [ S.10(1) ]
P.H.I. Seeds Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 165 DTR 129 /192 TTJ 412(Delhi)( Trib)
S. 35D : Amortization of preliminary expenses – Fees paid for increasing the authorize share capital of the assessee company which has been registered in an earlier year is not allowable as a preliminary expense [S. 40(a)(ia) , 194J]
Campbell Shipping (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 192 TTJ 24 (Mum.)(UO)(Trib.)
S. 32 : Depreciation- Non compete fee- Depreciation is held to be not allowable .
Dy. CIT v. Excelax Bio Polymers (P) Ltd. (2018) 192 TTJ 49 (UO)(Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 28(i) : Business income- In terms of memorandum of association, main object of assessee company was to acquire properties and to further let out such properties, income earned from such letting out was to be brought to tax as ‘business income’ and not as ‘income from house property’ [ S. 22, 27(iiib), 269UA(f) ]
Oberoi Investments (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018)161 DTR 257 (Kol) ( Trib)
S.14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – There was no exempt income earned and interest expense was not related to strategic investments of the company- Disallowance is not justified . [ R.8D ]
ACIT v. Paras Buildtech (India) (P.) Ltd. (2018) 62 ITR 284 (Delhi) ( Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Disallowance cannot made as without bringing basic fact that expenditure actually incurred to earn exempt income- Matter remanded to the AO. [ R.8D( 2) (ii) ]
Oricon Enterprises Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 231 / 67 ITR 433(Mum) (Trib.)