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. 69 :Unexplained investments-Income from undisclosed sources-Cash deposits in bank-Demonetization-Sales accepted-Books of account is not rejected-Addition is deleted. [S. 68, 115BBE]
Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 233 / 38 NYPTTJ 1282 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 69 :Unexplained investments-Un explained money-No excess stock-Survey-Merely on the basis of statement no addition can be made.[S.69A, 133A]
Saru Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 441 / 244 DTR 11 / 38 NYPTTJ 1325 (Chd)(Trib)
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Stamp value-Purchase of property jointly with eight persons-Less than stamp duty value-Addition cannot be made under section 69 of the Act-Provisions in Finance Act, 2013 has clarified that this amendment was not clarificatory in nature-It is categorically mentioned that this amendment was effective from 1st April, 2014 onwards and applicable to Assessment year 2014-15.[56(2)(vii)(b)]
Pooja Dipen Joshi v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 34 (UO) (Ahd) (Trib) Ashokkumar C.Joshi v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 34 (UO) (Ahd) (Trib)
S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Sufficient if in the two years, the land is used for agricultural purposes-Invested in capital gains scheme-Entitle to exemption. [S. 45]
Arun Agarwal v. ITO (2024) 232 TTJ 422 / 243 DTR 257 / 38 NYPTTJ 1207 (Jodhpur)(Trib)
S. 45(2) : Capital gains-Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade-Investment-Contribution of land to developer for construction of commercial complex in place of cinema hall-CIT(A) was justified in holding that invocation of S. 45(2) by the AO was not sustainable. [S. 45]
Dy.CIT v. Man Prakash Talkies (P) Ltd (2024) 232 TTJ 673 / 38 NYPTTJ 1272 (Jaipur)(Trib)
S. 45: Capital gains-Business income-Profit from sale of land-Assessee held the entire piece of land for five long years-Improvement made in the plot of land which was barren and uneven by resorting to land tilling, fencing, etc., was only with a view to make the land saleable and further plotting of the said land was also part of the same exercise-Assessable as capital gains and not as business income.[S. 2(13), 28(i)]
ACIT v. Himanshu Garg (2024) 232 TTJ 472 / 38 NYPTTJ 741 (Delhi)(Trib)
S.37(1): Business expenditure-Relief material given to Tsunami victims-Not allowable as business expenditure.
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 861 / 38 NYPTTJ 1420 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Interest is not charged on inter-corporate deposits made with group companies-No evidence of commercial expediency-Disallowance is justified.
Nayara Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 232 TTJ 353 / 244 DTR 89/ 38 NYPTTJ 1162 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 32: Depreciation-Written down value-Non-receipt of insurance claim of amalgamating company-Mere claim-Claim actually allowed only to be considered-Depreciation is directed to allow on enhanced amount-State capital investment subsidy-Not required to be deducted from the WDV for computing the depreciation. [S. 43(6)(c, 43(1), Explanation 10.]
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 232 TTJ 861 / 38 NYPTTJ 1420 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 28(iv) : Business income-Value of any benefit or perquisites-Converted in to money or not-Assets received free of cost from AEs located outside India-MAP-Price is already agreed under MAP-Therefore, the AO was not justified in making addition under S. 28(iv).
Samsung R&D Institute India-Bangalore (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2024) 232 TTJ 522 / 38 NYPTTJ 1392 (Bang)(Trib)