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. 43A : Rate of exchange-Foreign currency-Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-External commercial borrowing loans-Loss on reinstatement of external commercial borrowing-Mere reinstatement of losses per Accounting Standards without actual payment or remittance-Addition cannot be made-Additional ground is admitted. [S.37(1), 254(1)]
Bando (India) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 275 (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Payment to related parties-Deletion is justified. [S.40A(2)(b)]
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2024)114 ITR 434 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Service charges paid to group company-Common management services-Disallowance is deleted.
Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 502 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Mobilisation advance-Joint venture-Issue restored to Assessing Officer for verification.
Punj Lloyd Alcon Lk Goyal (JV) v. ITO (2024)114 ITR 36 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payments to contractors and professional or technical service fee-Deducted lower rate of tax-Disallowance is not justified.[S.194C, 194J]
ACIT v. First Advantage P. Ltd. (2024)114 ITR 45 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Commission-Disallowance is deleted.
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 114 ITR 546 (Ahd) (Trib)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Commission expense-Additional ground not considered-Matter remanded for de novo consideration. [S. 254(1)]
Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2024)114 ITR 434 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Amortisation of expenditure-Roc fees for share application money amortised over five years-Allowable as deduction.
Malbros Holdings P. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 114 ITR 25 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Product development expenses-Project dropped and expenses written off-No new software in existence and no enduring benefit-Allowable as revenue expenditure.
Global Tech India P. Ltd. v. ITO (2024)114 ITR 59 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Entertainment expenses-Major expenses are through banking channel-Rebates and discounts-Revenue cannot decide what constitutes reasonable expenditure-Enterprise resource planning software expense-Capitalised in books of account-Allowable as revenue expenditure, though the claim was not made in the original or revised return-Advertisement expenses-Purchase of Ice boxes, plastic tables and chairs, bearing logo-Allowable as business expenditure. [R. 46A]
ACIT v. Ludhiana Beverages P. Ltd. (2024) 114 ITR 81 (SN)(Amritsar)(Trib)