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. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Mere availment of house building loan by assessee from bank for purchasing a new residential unit could not act as a disqualification for claim of exemption .[ S.45 ]

Amit Parekh. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 213 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Assessee could raise objection to valuation through his return of income, only in the assessment proceedings . No universal principle with regard to being heard in the matter can be laid down and it all depends upon the language of provision and object and purpose of it [ S.45 ]

Jasvinder Hans. v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 241 / 164 DTR 249 (Asr) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains –Business income- Sale of shares – Following the rule of consistency, the income from sale of shares is assessable as capital gains and not as business income. [ S.28(i) ]

Dy. CIT v. Central Bank of India (2018) 191 TTJ 265/ 161 DTR 1 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible – Excessive or unreasonable –Firm -Partner- When partners of the firm contribute land as stock in trade though provision of S.45(3) would not be applicable , AO can examine reasonableness of payment to partners [ S.45(3) ]

ACIT v. Karuna Estates & Developers. (2018) 170 ITD 249 (Visakh) (Trib.)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Purchase of raw materials- Not liable to deduct tax at source [S.194C ]

Eshan Minerals (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 753 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Professional fees paid to foreign company to know about tax law applicable in that Country could not be taxed in India as per Art 14 of the OECD Model Tax Convention hence not liable to deduct tax at source.

ACIT v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells. (2018) 170 ITD 267 / 196 TTJ 355/ ( 2019) 174 DTR 289(Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Interest under Jharkhand VAT Act, 2005 being compensatory nature is allowable as deduction. Penalties being not compensatory nature is held to be not allowable [ Jharkhand VAT Act , 2005 S. 30(1), 30(3), 30(4)(d),63(3) ]

Bokaro Power Supply Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 22/163 DTR 259 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Though property remained vacant during relevant previous year benefit of S.23(1)(c ) is available . [ S.23(1) ( c ) ]

ITO v. Metaoxide (P.) Ltd. (2018) 170 ITD 235 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.23: Income from house property- Annual value -Deemed rent to be computed on the basis of Municipal rateable value and not on the basis of market rent [ S.22 ]

Owais M.Husain v ITO (2018) 194 TTJ 102/ 167 DTR 49( Mum) (Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Personal effects- Sale of painting received by gift from father is held to be capital receipts – Amendment by Finance Act 2007 w.e.f 1-04 -2008 is prospective in nature . [ S.2(14),28(i) ]

Owais M.Husain v ITO (2018) 194 TTJ 102/ 167 DTR 49( Mum) (Trib)