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. 45: Capital gains-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Capital gains-Non-Resident-Cost of acquisition-Short term capital loss-TRC produced-Matter remanded to the file of Assessing Officer-DTAA-India-USA.[S. 9(1)(i), Art. 13]

Biplab Adhya. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 643 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Family arrangement-Transfer of shares under family arrangement-Transfer of shares as per direction of Company Law Board (CLB )-Not transfer-Not liable to capital gains tax.[S. 2(47)]

Sujan Azad Parikh. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 83 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 44AD :Presumptive basis-Civil contractor-State Public Works Department relating to road construction-Estimate of net profit at 4 percent on turnover basis is affirmed.[S. 44AB, 144]

DCIT v. Srinivasan Devendran. (2023) 198 ITD 495 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-liability of sundry creditor-Capital asset-Capital expenditure-Neither put to use nor claimed depreciation-Addition cannot be made.

Marvelore Mining & Allied Industries (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 629 (Surat) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Purchase of land-Payment of cash on demand by seller-Seller admitted the receipt of cash-Disallowance is deleted. [R.6DD]

Monika Chitrasen Patil. (Mrs.) v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 508 (SMC) (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Real estate developer-Purchase of land as capital asset-Commercially exploited later as stock in trade-Provision of section 40A(3) cannot be applied.[S. 45(2)]

C G Housing Company. v. ITO (2023) 198 ITD 42 (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fes for technical services-Sales support service-Located in Dubai-Marketing of products-Train resources of marketing partner to provide pre-sale and after sale product services to customers-Fees for technical services-Liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance is justified.[S.9(1)(vii), 195]

Sunsmart Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 347 / 222 TTJ 893(Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business of cinema photographic films, Legal fees-Dispute of film-Allowable as deduction whether the film would release or not would be irrelevant-Abandoned project-Service charges paid to a marketing company related to a film-film which was subsequently abandoned and never released-Allowable as business loss-Interest expenditure-Project abandoned-Capital or revenue-Allowable as deduction[S. 28(i), 36(1)(iii ) Rule 9A]

Steller Films (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 198 ITD 682 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Premium paid on foreign exchange forward contracts-Amortized as revenue expenditure over life of contract. [Accounting Standard (AS)-11]

CLP Wind Farm (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 690 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign travel expenses-Business of real estate development and construction-To understand global trend of business-Business man point of view-Travel expenditure-Ad-hoc disallowance of 25 percent is not Sales promotion expenses-Allowed as deduction.

Well Wisher Construction (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 198 ITD 268 (Mum) (Trib.)