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.37(1): Business expenditure-Commercial expediency-Mutual fund-Fund manager-Assessing Officer cannot put himself in the armchair of the assessee and decide whether to incur expenses or not-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 260A]

CIT v. Sahara Asset Management Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 625/ 183 taxmann.com 235 (Mad)(HC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Advantage for enduring benefit-Non-compete fee-No monopoly achieved-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) Dy.CIT v. Pentamedia Graphics Ltd (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) PCIT v. Piramal Glass Ltd (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 / 257 DTR 49 (SC) CIT v. Penatsoft Technolgies Ltd (2026) 484 ITR 509 /308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496 (Delhi) (HC) / Sharp Business System v. CIT [2012] 254 CTR 233/211 Taxman 576 (Delhi (HC) set aside. The court remanded the remaining appeals to the respective Tribunals to be heard afresh, having regard to the ratio laid down as per para 32 of the Judgement.

S. 36(1)(viii) : Eligible business-Special reserve-Forty per cent. of “profits derived from such business of providing long-term finance”-Amendment brought by Finance Act, 1995-Concept of an integrated business cannot be invoked to expand scope of benefit to cover income not strictly satisfying definition-Dividend does not qualify as profits derived from business of providing long-term finance or loans Not eligible for deduction-Interest earned from bank deposits attributable to business, but not derived from activity of providing long-term finance-Not eligible for deduction-Service charges received for Sugar Development Fund loans Funds belonged to Government of India-Receipts were charges paid by Government for administrative tasks of monitoring and disbursement Proximate source was agency agreement with Government, not lending activity-Could not be equated with “profits derived from business of providing long-term finance” Not eligible for deduction-“Derived from”-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Strict interpretation-Precedent-Judgment based on old, broader law cannot be used to interpret new, stricter provision.[S.80IB, Art. 136]

National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT (2026) 484 ITR 193/308 Taxman 168 (SC) Editorial: National Co-Operative Development Corporation v. ACIT (2012) 204 Taxman 6 / (2013) 356 ITR 184 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Advance to subsidiary-investment made for acquiring controlling interest in associate concern-Commercial expediency-Allowable as deduction. [S. 37 (1)]

Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509/308 Taxman 285 /348 CTR 1 (SC) Editorial : Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496/308 Taxman 285 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Intangible asset-Non-compete agreement-Right in personam-Not an intangible asset-Depreciation not allowable on non-compete fees.[S. 32(1)(ii)]

Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496/ 308 Taxman 285 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509/ 308 Taxman 285 (SC), allowed as revenue expenditure.

S. 28(i) : Business income-Capital gains-Two provisions operate in distinct and independent fields-Mere receipt not sufficient to attract charge Commercial realisability required-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade Nature of stock-in-trade wholly different from investment-No exception contemplated in case of business assets-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade-Profit taxable as business profits-Burden on department to establish and Tribunal to apply the principles to evidence on record-Charge attracted only upon allotment of new shares-Not on appointed date or date of court sanction. [S. 2(1B), 2(14), 2(47), 28, 45(1), 47(vii) Art. 136]

Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641/ 182 taxmann.com 219 (SC) Nalwa Investment Ltd v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Abhinandan Tradex Ltd v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Mansarover Tradex Ltd v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nalwa Investment Ltd (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed, Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT [2020] 272 Taxman 391 / 425 ITR 420 (SC) distinguished.

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Disallowance is not attracted where there is no income exempt from tax-Disallowance is restricted to the extent of exempt income-Finance Bill, 2022, declaring that amendment to take effect from 1-4-2022 and accordingly applies in relation to assessment year 2022-2023 and subsequent assessment years-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [R.8D]

PCIT v. Alchemist Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. UNO Menda Ltd [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Tribunal affirmed and applied proviso to section 2(15) to disentitle exemption under sections 11 and 12-Expenditure exceeded donations and no retention of income, but deficit of seven per cent-Proviso to section 2(15) not attracted and denial of exemption unsustainable.[S. 2(15), 12AA]

Give Foundation v. JCIT (2026) 484 ITR 602 /308 Taxman 38 (Guj)(HC)

S. 69: Unexplained investments – Unexplained jewellery- Search – Considering the assessee’s age, social status, occupation, family background and customary gifts received on various occasions, the Tribunal held the possession of 48.9 gms to be reasonable. Diamond and precious-stone-studded jewellery cannot be excluded from the benefit of CBDT Instruction No. 1916 merely because it contains diamonds or precious stones. Accordingly, the entire addition of Rs.3,86,186/- was deleted – Enhanced rate of 60% – Search conducted on 26-07-2016 – Amendment by Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 – Enhanced rate applicable prospectively – Not applicable where search was conducted prior to 15-12-2016. [ S. 69A , 115BBE , 132 ]

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal v. ACIT( Nagpur ) ( Trib) www. Itatonline.org

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Award cost – Additional evidence – Conditional remand before the Assessing Officer -Demonetisation- Unexplained cash deposits, unsecured loans, sundry creditors and agricultural income – The assessee should, within one month from the date of the order, plant 500 trees and furnish documentary evidence thereof, or deposit the requisite cost with the NGO. [ S. 68 , 143(3) ]

Shri Ranbir Singh v. DCIT, Central-2 www.itatonline.org .