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. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payments to transporters-Permanent Account Number and addresses of transporters before the Assessing Officer-Provision of S.194C(6) is complied with–No disallowance can be made. [S. 194C(6)]
Fine Blanking Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 70 ITR 400 (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 45 : Capital gains-Sale of shares-Entry operator-Bogus long term capital gains- Produced sufficient material-Addition cannot be made as cash credits. [S. 10(38), 68]
Sangita Jhunjhunwala (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 70 ITR 247 (Kol.) (Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Expenditure incurred on earning on term deposit is allowable as deduction.
Ashwin S. Mehta v. ACIT (2019) 70 ITR 234 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Illegal expenses-Distribution of ball pens, medical gifts etc. with logo of the company to doctors and hospitals–Allowable as business expenditure-Explanation 1 to S. 37(1) is not applicable.
Aishika Pharma (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 177 ITD 238 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Interest bearing loans–Charged interest at 9% – Disallowance of interest at 12% is held to be not justified. [S. 36(1)(iii)]
Alkoplus Producers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 177 ITD 150 / 71 ITR 650/ 181 DTR 329/ 201 TTJ 893 (Pune)(Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-ad hoc disallowance of 50% – Furnished details of payment-Ad-hoc disallowance is held to be not justified.
Alkoplus Producers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 177 ITD 150 / 71 ITR 650/181 DTR 329 /201 TTJ 893 (Pune) (Trib.)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Illegal payments-Fee paid for registration of product in Iraq- Cannot be said to be payment of kickbacks to Iraqi regime for doing business-Allowable as deduction.
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd) (Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Interest free loan to subsidiary from interest bearing funds- Proportionate interest payment is disallowable.
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Provision for interest liability–Held to be allowable as deduction-Rule of consistency- It is not open to revenue to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee, and appeal, against the identical judgment in the case of another. It was held that such a differential treatment on the same set of facts was not permissible in law. [S. 43B]
DCIT v. Core Healthcare Ltd. (2019) 177 ITD 26 (Ahd.)(Trib.)