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. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Sale of flats to related persons- Amendment brought on 1-4-2010 vide clause (f) to section 80IB(10) barring sale of more than one flat in a housing project to related persons, is prospective in nature [ S.80IB(10)(f) ]

CIT v. Elegant Estates. (2018)407 ITR 425/ 256 Taxman 433 (Mad) (HC)

S. 72A : Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Maintenance of separate books of account is not mandatory .[ S.72A(4)(a)]

PCIT v. Adani Retail Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 68 (Guj)(HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Search- Return is filed by assessee within reasonable time permitted by issue of notice under S. 153A(1)(a), such return will be deemed to have been filed within time permitted under S. 139(1) for benefit under S. 139(3) to be availed of by assessee [ S.80, 139, 153A ]

Shrikant Mohta. v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 43 / 170 DTR 50/ 304 CTR 650/( 2019) 414 ITR 270 (Cal)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money -Search and seizure -Block assessment -Statement on oath- Merely on the basis that assessee in course of statement made under S. 132(4) had admitted that said jewellery belonged to him, could not be sustained ,when in the course of assessment proceedings established that jewellery seized from him actually belonged to his employer – There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced by assessee only at time when seizure has been made and not during assessment proceedings .[ S.132(4) , 158BC ]

CIT v. Rakesh Ramani. (2018) 256 Taxman 299/ 168 DTR 356 (Bom) (HC)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments -Search -Advance receipts- Real estate business-Amounts were received from bulk purchasers as per agreement and, that assessee had also filed cash flow statement and looking to modus operandi of business said sums were verifiable, thus, no addition was required to be made on this account

CIT v.Ranjeet Singh Yadav ( 2018) 257 Taxman 252 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v . Ranjeet Singh Yadav. (2018) 257 Taxman 29 (SC)

S. 54B : Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes -Sale deed for purchase and sale of land, found that assessee sold this land within two years from date of its purchase and not used land for agricultural purposes for a minimum period of two years before its sale -Not entitle exemption- Moreover, from expenses incurred, it could be proved that said land was never used for agricultural purposes after it was purchased by assessee as assessee was concentrating on its improvement rather than cultivation. [ S.45 ]

Gopal S. Pandit. v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 346/ 257 Taxman 50 / 172 DTR 23/( 2019) 307 CTR 112(Karn) (HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Agricultural produce – Paddy from farmers- No disallowance can be made [ R.6DD ]

CIT v Keerthi Agro Mills (P.) Ltd. ( 2017) 405 ITR 192/ 87 taxmann.com 31 ( Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;PCIT v. Keerthi Agro Mills (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits of Rs 20,000 -Inflated purchase expenditure by raising bogus claims – Only profit element embedded there in should be brought to tax and not the entire expenditure .[ S.37(1), 145 ]

PCIT v. Juned B. Memon (2018) 256 Taxman 380 (Guj) (HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure- Capital or revenue -Abandoned projects – State Government ordered closure of implementation of said project – Same line of existing business- Allowable as business expenditure.

Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 543/ 257 Taxman 79/ 171 DTR 151/ 305 CTR 269 (Mad) ( HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure- Education expenses of director’s son- No direct nexus with the business of the company – Not allowable as deduction .

Indian Galvanics Cyrium Foils Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 257 Taxman 32 / 303 CTR 800/ 168 DTR 241 (Bom) (HC)