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.37(1): Business expenditure -Granting monetary benefit to legal heir of a former employee on the basis of resolution passed by the cpmpany is allowable as business expenditure .

CIT v. India Motor Parts & Accessories Ltd ( 2018) 255 Taxman 132 ( Mad)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure – Capital or revenue- Product development expenses -Expenditure incurred improving quality of existing products – Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure .

CIT v. Arvind Products Ltd ( 2018) 255 Taxman 472 ( Guj) (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Stay- Revenue authorities cannot pass an order mechanically referring the instruction no 1914 dt. 21-03 1996,directing the Assessee to pay 20 percent of amount during pendency of appeal before CIT (A)- Order of PCIT is set aside and reamnded to the PCIT to reconsider the application of stay and decide in accordance with law .[ S.251 ]

Charishma Hotels ( P) Ltd v. ITO ( 2018) 255 Taxman 187/ 305 CTR 621/ ( 2019) 410 ITR 96 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Stay- Power of stay with Appellate Authority cannot be equated to power garnted to the Assessing Officer- Petition was dismissed and directed to file stay petition before CIT(A )[ S.220(6), 251 ]

Cavinkare ( P) Ltd v. CIT( A) ( 2018) 255 Taxman 181 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment- Charitable trust-Appeal agsint rejection of application for exemption of income was pending for next year- Reassessment notice for earlier years would not be vitiated by pending appeal against cancellation of application under S.13 of the Act .[ S. 11, 12AA, 13 , 148 ]

Urban Development Authority v.ITO ( 2018) 256 Taxman 237 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Development and construction of residential building -Followed Accounting Standard- Disallowance of interest is not justified on the ground that interest on borrowings was included in closing work in progress .[ S.145 ]

PCIT v. Milroc Good Earth Property & Developers LLP ( 2018) 256 Taxman 257 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income -Accrual- Mercantile system of accounting -Not liable to be taxed on notional interest on non-performing assets considering the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India [ S. 145 ]

PCIT v. Kutch District Co -op Bank Ltd ( 2018) 94 taxmann.com 298 ( Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ,CIT v.Jamnagar District Co -Operative Bank Ltd ( 2018) 256 Taxman 212 ( SC)

S.145: Method of accounting -Project completion method- Disclusure in the course of survey-Construction business- Income could be taxed only when sale deeds of units sold were registered even though sale consideration have been received earlier from buyer .[S.133A]

CIT v.Happy Home Corporation ( 2018) 256 Taxman 214 ( Guj) (HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , CIT v Happy Home Corporation ( 2019) 261 Taxman 555 ( SC)

S. 150 : Assessment – Order on appeal –Reassessment -Assessment in pursuance of an order of appeal, etc. -Amendment is held to be prospectively -In course of appellate proceedings Commissioner (Appeals) made on observation that issue relating to capital gain earned by assessee might be considered in relevant year, it could not be regarded as definite finding under section 150(1) and, thus, assessment could not be reopened on basis of said observation after expiry of time limit of six years as prescribed in section 149- Order was quashed. [S. 147, 148 , 149]

Pt. Rung Lal Trust v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 419 (Luck)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-transfer Accrual-Development agreement-As per terms of development agreement with builder the assessee would not be paid any monetary consideration but would receive built-up residential area on completion of project-Capital gains cannot be taxed on accrual basis in the year of agreement. [S. 2(47)(v), 48]

Aarti Sanjay Kadam (Mrs.) v. ITO (2018) 172 ITD 362 (Mum.) (Trib.)