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. 69A : Unexplained money–Unexplained cash receipts-Description of property was not furnished–Addition is held to be justified.

Sangeetha Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 61/ 261 Taxman 220 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 57 : Income from other sources–Interest–Intercorporate deposits (ICDS)-Interest received is held to be taxable as income from other sources–Interest paid to sister concern is held to be allowable as deduction. [S. 56]

PCIT v. Jubilant Energy Nelp-V (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 194/ 178 DTR 365 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 54F : Capital gains–Capital asset-Investment in a residential house–Booked a flat in January 1981–Right in the flat was sold in the year 2005 -Allowable deduction. [S. 2(14), 45]

CIT v. Kalpana Hansraj (2019) 261 Taxman 294 / 176 DTR 217/ 307 CTR 797 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability–Not claimed any deduction of any trading liability in any earlier year-Addition cannot be made.

CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283 /(2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 40A(9) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Bonus to employees-Contribution made by assessee-company to various clubs meant for staff and their families was admissible as deduction [S. 37(1)]

CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 251 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source–Payee filed the return and offered the sum received from the assessee – Second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) has retrospective effect from 1-4-2010-No disallowances can be made. [SD. 194J, 201]

CIT v. Bhanot Construction & Housing Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 262 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Illegal Commission-Volcker Committee Report – No finding that the asesee had made payment – Deletion of addition held to be justified.

CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283/ / (2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Financial services-Sub–brokerage– Disallowance of 10% sub brokerage is held to be justified.

PCIT v. Paramount Financial Services (2019) 261 Taxman 128 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Provision for project expenses – TDS was also deduced – Held to be allowable. [S. 145]

CIT v. Grace Colonizers (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 176 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Failure to establish that the expenses related to Hotel business was her proprietorship business – Disallowance was confirmed.

Sangeetha Jain (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 414 ITR 61/ 261 Taxman 220 (Karn.)(HC)