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.80P: Co-operative Societies-Since there was no infirmity in the computation of income as computed by the assessee under the head “business income”, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P following the judgment of High Court of Kerala in the case of Chirackkal Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. CIT [S.143(1)(a))]

Aroor Co-operative Urban Society v. DCIT (2023) 221 TTJ 799/223 DTR 63 (Cochin) (Trib)

S. 80IB(10): : Housing projects-No deduction shall be allowed under section 80-IB(10) if not claimed in return of income. [S.80A(5) 80AC, 139 (1), Form No 10CCB]

ITO v. Jagtap Patil Promoters & Builders (2023) 221 TTJ 617 / 147 taxmann.com 199 (Pune) (Trib)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Completion of project-Deduction is allowed in earlier years –Allocation of common expenses-Rule of consistency is followed.

JCIT v. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (2023) 102 ITR 54 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Rental income inseparably connected with a business and originates directly from the business of undertaking-Eligible for deduction.

Menzies Aviation Bobba (Bangalore) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 102 ITR 373 (Bang)(Trib.)

S.69A: Unexplained money-Merely on the basis of suspicion, howsoever it is strong, the Assessing Officer is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. Accordingly, the deletion of impugned addition under section 69A made by CIT (Appeals) was upheld by the Tribunal.[S.133A]

Sunil Sahu v. ACIT (2023) 221 TTJ 631/ 222 DTR 186 (Indore) (Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-AO cannot partly accept the books of accounts and partly reject the same and decide the sales as per his choice to categorize into bogus sales and non-bogus sales-AO cannot determine the bogus sales without disputing the books of accounts or bringing any evidence on record.[S.115BBE]

Balwinder Kumar v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 228 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 69A: Unexplained money-When sufficient explanation for the source of the Cash deposits were provided to the lower authorities, it was incorrect to disregard the same, unless enquiries to prove contrary facts were made & established.

Joginder Singh Johal v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 9 (SN) (Kol) (Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Delay condoned-Covid period-Demonetisation-Ad hoc addition is deleted. [S. 253]

Manju Baheti v. Assessing Officer (2023) 102 ITR 369(SMC) (Kol)(Trib)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash gifts-Weddings, Raksha Bandhan, Birthdays and Deepawali-Failure to produce supporting documents-Addition is justified-Pending assessment-The time for summary assessment under section 143(1) and for notice under section 143(2) of the Act had not lapsed, it was a case of pending assessment, which got merged with assessment under section 153A. [S.153A]

Karina Kunjana Kapoor (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2023)102 ITR 82 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 69: Unexplained investments-Difference in Cost of Construction as per valuation Report-Books of account not rejected-Addition is not justified. [S. 142A(2)]

ITO v. Pritham & Prathik Hospitals (P) Ltd (2023) 221 TTJ 911/223 DTR 177 (Hyd)(Trib)