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. 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)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital–Investment in acquiring control of two companies–Disallowance of expenditure on imaginary income and expenditure of subsequent year is held to be not justified – Expenditure is held to be allowable. [S. 14A, 57]

Vikram Somany v. CIT (2019) 261 Taxman 226 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Unless and until there is receipt of exempted income for concerned assessment year, section 14A is not attracted.[R. 8D]

PCIT v. Vardhman Chemtech (P.) Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 233/ 179 DTR 35/(2020)423 ITR 241 (P&H)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Applicability of Rule 8D is not mandatory in every case where assessee earns tax free dividend income – Rule 8D cannot be invoked and applied unless Assessing Officer records his dissatisfaction regarding correctness of claim made by assessee in relation to expenditure incurred to earn exempt income. [S. 10(34), R.8D ]

PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 179 (Delhi)(HC)