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. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Rent paid for residential accommodation excessive in comparison to market rate-Assessing officer’s reliance on material obtained from internet unreliable-Deletion of addition by commissioner (appeals) upheld.

Spicejet Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2023)102 ITR 58 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Disallowance of business expenditure-Transport-Revision of order by the tribunal-Held amendment was done to remove hardship caused to the assessee-Amendment not clarificatory in nature.

Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO,(2023) 221 TTJ 21 (UO (Cuttack)(Trib)

S. 40(a)(ii): Amounts not deductible-Rates or tax-Education cess-Not allowable.

Dy. CIT v. National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development [2023] 221 TTJ 25/221 DTR 369 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure: Genuineness of job work charge-Produced formidable evidences to identify contractors as well as factum of incurring job work expenses, said expenses deserved to be allowed.[S.131(1)(d), 133(6), Order XVI, rule 19 of CPC, 1908]

United Foods (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 221 TTJ 1/ 148 taxmann.com 452 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Assessee, following a consistent method of accounting, has offered EIS to tax on proportionate basis as and when they have accrued over tenure of loan and same has been accepted by revenue-in accordance with RBI norms as well as AS-9-Therefore, keeping in view principle of prudence as well as rule of consistency, no fault could be found with accounting methodology adopted by assessee to recognize revenue under securitization transactions. [S. 145]

Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 102 ITR 685 (Chennai) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure Prior period expenditure-Expenditure crystallising only during relevant previous year when bills were received-Allowable as deduction-Provisions for expenses at end of previous year-Actually paid after end of previous year-Allowable as deduction-Contributions to provident Funds-Provision for gratuity-Government Provident Fund Established as Per Provident Funds Act, 1925-Allowable as deduction. [S. 36(1)(va) 40A(7) 145, Constitution, Art.12]

West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2023)102 ITR 453 (Kol)(Trib

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Insurance business-Provisions on standard assets-Allowable as deduction.[S.44]

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (LTU) (2023)102 ITR 122 (Delhi)(Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Donation-Contribution-Ministry of Rural Development Instructing Public Sector Banks to lead Institutions in managing and running institutes-Allowable as deduction-Cenvat Credit–Unutilised Cenvat credit charged to profit and loss account-Not allowable as deduction-Bad debt written off-Matter remanded. [S. 36(1)(vii) 80G, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.]

UOI v. Dy. CIT (2023)102 ITR 235 (Bang) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue training and licensing of Pilots-Entries in books not determinative of nature of expenditure-Allowable as revenue expenditure in year of incurrence.[S. 145]

Spicejet Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2023)102 ITR 58 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Foreign currency convertible bonds-Not amortising expenses in books-Revenue nature allowable as deduction-Premium payable on redemption of bonds-Allowable as deduction.

Spicejet Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2023)102 ITR 58 (Delhi)(Trib)