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 – 15% rate of interest was paid on borrowed capital – Allowable as deduction on principle of commercial expediency .[ S.37(1) ]

CIT v. Shree Benzophen Industries Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 185 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Shree Benzophen Industries Ltd. (2018) 401 ITR 170 (St)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital -Amount borrowed utilised for purchase of capital assets — Interest is deductible .

CIT v. Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 737 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 1 ( St)

S. 35 : Scientific research – Weighted deduction —Date of approval is not relevant — Application for approval in December 2006 and approval was granted in October 2008 — Entitle to weighted deduction.[ S.35(2AB) ]

Banco Products (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 318/ 258 Taxman 244 (Guj) (HC)

S. 32: Depreciation -Plant and machinery put to use in April 1992 — Depreciation is not allowable for the assessment Year.

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)

S. 17 : Perquisite – Salary-Employees deputed abroad — Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.15,17(2), 192 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 17 : Perquisite – Salary-Employees deputed abroad — Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.15,17(2), 192 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Tribunal remanding the issue of interest expenses and deleting other expenses-– Order of Tribunal is up held – No question of law [S. 254(1) , 260A, R.8D ]

CIT v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 500 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 12 ( St)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Depreciation and other deductions –
-Neither any deduction claimed by assessee for Assessment Years prior to amendment nor exemption granted — Ten years’ relief allowed by later amendment in 2003 —Interpretation- Legislative intent – The intent of the Legislature while it made those amendments was not to curtail the relief to an assessee, who had not availed of double benefit- Matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. [ S.10A(6) ]

Phoenix Lamps Ltd. v. CIT( 2017) 87 taxmann.com 353 / (2018) 405 ITR 189 (All) (HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed as the Tribunal has passed the final order after the remand CIT v. Phoenix Lamps Ltd ( 2019) 263 Taxman 338 (SC)

S. 10(14) : Special allowance or benefit -Allowance received by employee to cover expenses incurred wholly in performance of duties —Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption. [ S.15, 17 , 192 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent Establishment -Global payment solutions facilitating use of electronic forms of Payment, ie by credit card, instead of cash and cheques -Banks and financial Institutions – There was a fixed place permanent establishment, service permanent establishment and dependent agent permanent establishment-On such attribution of income to the permanent establishment, the tax was required to be withheld at full applicable rate at which the non-resident is subjected to tax in India. Even automatic equipment like server can also create a permanent establishment and there was no requirement of human intervention- DTAA-India -Singapore [ Art. 5, 7, 12 ]

Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Singapore, In Re (2018) 406 ITR 43/ 303 CTR 305/ 167 DTR 321 (AAR)