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. 145 : Method of accounting –Banking company-Stock in trade-Securities held on basis of ‘Held to Maturity’ (HTM) were to be regarded as stock-in-trade and, thus, same had to be valued at cost or market value whichever was less.
PCIT v. Bank of Maharashtra (2018) 258 Taxman 205/98 taxmann.com.581 /165 DTR 438 /(2019) 410 ITR 413 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to revenue ; PCIT v. Bank of Maharashtra (2018) 258 Taxman 204/ 406 ITR 32 ( St) (SC)
S.142(2A): Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–Principal Commissioner, before deciding issue of approval for Special Audit gave opportunity to assessee- Writ is dismissed.[ Art .226 ]
Ramswaroop Shivhare v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 290 / 305 CTR 425/ 170 DTR 427 (MP)(HC)
S. 139 : Return of income –Failure to file tax audit report-Direction of the Assessing Officer to rectify the mistake- Revised return filed beyond period prescribed by Assessing Officer –No condonation of application was filed either before Assessing Officer , CIT(A) or Tribunal-Treating the return as in valid is held to be justified .[ S.44AB, 139(9)]
Hytaisun Magnetics Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 258 Taxman 264 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 139 : Return of income –Revised return- Rejection of revised return on the ground that it was not accompanied with tax audit report without giving an opportunity to rectify the mistake is held to be bad in law- Order was set aside and matter was to be remanded back for disposal afresh.[ S.44AB,139(5), 139(9)]
Zeenath International Supplies, Chennai v. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 367/ 172 DTR 429/ ( 2019) 306 CTR 590 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 43B : Certain deductions only on actual payment –Service tax payable-Since services were rendered, liability to pay service tax in respect of consideration would arise only upon assessee receiving funds and not otherwise-liability claimed by assessee could not be disallowed.
PCIT v. Tops Security Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 161 (Bom.)(HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Tops Security Ltd( 2019) 262 Taxman 355 (SC)
S. 41(1) :Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability -Non-payment of outstanding liability which is admitted and acknowledged as due and payable cannot be assessed as remission or cessation of liability.
PCIT v. New World Synthetics Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 189 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Factory was situated in backward area and payments to transporters had to be made in cash because such persons were not having banking facility around factory area Freight and cartage payments to drivers-Held to be allowable as deduction .[ R.6DD ]
PCIT v. Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. (2018) 97 taxmann.com 513/ 258 Taxman 131 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed. PCIT v. Lord Chloro Alkali Ltd. (2018) 258 Taxman 130 (SC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Foreign education and training expenses of a partner –Held to be allowable as business expenditure as the post graduate course underwent was directly related to profession carried on by firm – Professional fee received by firm had substantially increased after completion of post graduate degree by said partner, several important contracts were secured by firm, which firm attributed to educational qualification and expertise acquired by said partner abroad .
Aswathanarayana & Eswara v. Dy. CIT (2018) 258 Taxman 210 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure –Capital or revenue- Manufacture of PVC and caustic soda and business of shipping , starting textile business- Abandoned project – Manufacture of New venture was managed from common funds, control over all business units and there was unity of control, it could not be said that pre-operative expenditure was incurred on a new line of business- Held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.
Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 258 Taxman 297/ ( 2019) 412 ITR 323 (Mad.)(HC)