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. 80G : Donation -Spending more than 5 percent of income on pooja and telecast – Denial of approval was not justified when the exemption was granted under S.12AA of the Income -tax Act .[ S.12AA, 80G(5)(vi) ]

CIT v. Sant Girdhar Anand Parmhans Sant Ashram. (2018) 408 ITR 79/ 305 CTR 99/ 168 DTR 289 (P&H) (HC)

S. 69A : : Unexplained money – Income from undisclosed sources — Illegal gains by short supply of contracted articles – Addition as income from undisclosed source is held to be justified .

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal Alias Mahesh Agarwal v. ACIT (2018) 408 ITR 119/( 2019) 173 DTR 299/ 306 CTR 479 (Pat) (HC)

S.68:Cash credits — Share capital- The assessee being a private limited company the burden of proof was on a higher pedestal even though the assessee had furnished the particulars of the bank accounts, passport, permanent account number card, addresses and earnings by the shareholder-cum-director and the money had been invested through banking channels- the share subscribers did not have their own profit making apparatus and were not involved in business activity- Money was routed through – Profit motive normal in the case of investment was entirely absent -No profit or dividend was declared -Genuineness of transactions were doubted –Addition was held to be justified -No question of law arose . [ S.260A ]

Shreenath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 198 (Raj) (HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits -Deletion of addition by Tribunal on ground that expenditure negligible considering turnover of assessee -Matter Remitted to AO to redo assessment on consideration of related documents .

CIT v. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (2018) 408 ITR 176/ 258 taxman 396 / 172 DTR 423/( 2019) 307 CTR 569(Mad) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Fees for professional or technical services – third party administrator for insurance companies – Payment through assessee- Not liable to deduct tax at source- No disallowances can be made [ S. 194J, 260A ]

CIT v. Health India TPA Services P. Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 34 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: Decision in ACIT v. Health India TPA Services P. Ltd ( 2014) 31 ITR 407 ( Mum)( Trib) is affirmed .

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Fees for professional or technical services – third party administrator for insurance companies – Payment through assessee- Not liable to deduct tax at source- No disallowances can be made [ S. 194J, 260A ]

CIT v. Dedicated Healthcare Services (TPA ) India Pvt. Ltd. (2018] 408 ITR 36/ 259 Taxman 192 / 304 CTR 937/ 170 DTR 345(Bom) (HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure — Marketing expenses -Multi-Speciality Hospital — Gifts to doctors – Matter Remitted To Assessing Officer for verification to find out whether for canvasing for patients .

CIT v. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (2018) 408 ITR 176/ 258 Taxman 396/ 172 DTR 423/( 2019) 307 CTR 569 (Mad) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Expenditure on acquisition of distribution rights of feature films —Film must be commercially exploited and income received and credited in books — Feature films never exhibited and no amount credited in profit and loss account —Deduction is not allowable .[ R9B ]

Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 408 ITR 125 (Ker) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Provision for warranty which is made on scientific basis is deductible. [ S.145 ]

CIT v. Acer India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 24 (Karn) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital – Advances made to sister concerns from own funds – No disallowances can be made .[ S.37(1) ]

CIT v. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 184 / 259 Taxman 97(Delhi) (HC)