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. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Land sold for residential purposes as per sale deed-Land recorded as agricultural land as per revenue record-Assessee, not applied for change of land-AO failed to enquire whole land in survey number converted to non-agricultural purpose or land falling to share of assessee-CIT(A) is directed to allow additional evidence-Matter Remanded. [S. 2(14) (iii), R. 46A]

Vipin Kumar v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 68 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Reference to D.V.O.-Value in report of D.V.O. lower-Report submitted after assessment order-CIT(A) ought to have considered the value of the report. [S. 45, 48]

Puran Pradhan v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 266 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Cost of acquisition-Fair market value on 01.04.1981-Correct F.M.V. to be considered-Assessee’s computation to be accepted. [S. 45, 50C, 55]

Puran Pradhan v. ITO (2023)101 ITR 266 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Allotment of property-Date of acquisition of property to be reckoned with from date of allotment i.e., in year 1998-99, and thus sale of said office premises on 19-5-2012 would result in long term capital gains. [S. 2(29AA), 2(29B)]

Sumit Export v. Asst. CIT (2023) 101 ITR 62 /148 taxmann.com 475 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 43(1) : Actual cost-Subsidy cannot be deducted from W.D.W of block of asset. [Explanation-10]

Asst. CIT v. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. (2023)101 ITR 359 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Amount ceasing to be liability-Necessary details not supplied to AO-Evidence produced for the first time-Matter remanded.[S. 254(1)]

Asst. CIT v. Ansal Landmark (Karnal) Township Pvt. Ltd. (2023)101 ITR 6 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 40A (3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits –Additional evidence-No reasonable cause for admitting additional evidence.[ITATR. 29.]

Saranya Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. v ITO (2023)101 ITR 60 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Business expediency-Claim not rebutted-Disallowance quashed.[R. 6DD]

Raju Kashyap v. Asst. CIT (2023)101 ITR 37 (SN)/ 222 TTJ 269 (SMC) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 40(b)(v) : Amounts not deductible-Partner-Remuneration-Payments as per partnership deed-Permissible limit-Disallowance is not justified. [S. 15, 192]

Asst. CIT v. Dhar Construction Co. (2023)199 ITD 124/ 101 ITR 49 (SN)(Gauhati)(Trib)

S. 40(b)(iv) : Amounts not deductible-Partner-Interest-Interest payment to legal heirs of dead partner-Already subjected to tax deducted at source-Cannot be disallowed on the ground of passing of entry-Remanded. [S. 36(1) (iii), 194A]

Savla Agencies v. JCIT (2023)101 ITR 57 (SN) (All) (Trib)