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. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Determination of ALP by Tribunal can be subjected to scrutiny by High Court in an appeal-Matter remanded to High Court. [Art. 136]

PCIT v.Warburg Pincus India (P.) Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 417 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v.Warburg Pincus India (P.) Ltd (2023) 153 taxmann.com 574 (Bom)(HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies-An apex co-operative society within meaning of State Act, 1984-Primary object is to provide financial accommodation to its members who were all other co-operative societies and not members of public-Not a co-operative Bank-Entitle to deduction. [S.80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4), Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S.56, Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969]

Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (2023) 458 ITR 384 /295 Taxman 675 / 334 CTR 601(SC) Editorial: Reversed, Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (2016) 238 Taxman 638/ 383 ITR 610(Ker)(HC), Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 70 ITR 28 (SN) (Chochin)(Trib) Kerala State Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2019)72 ITR 523 (Cochin)(Trib)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Sepaarate completion certificate to each unit-Eligible for deduction. [S.260A]

PCIT v. Shree Jivraj Township (2023) 295 Taxman 619 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Market value of electricity supplied by CPP Unit to general unit would be same being charged by GEB from consumers and it ignored rate on which power generating company supplied its power to GEB.[S.80IA(8)]

PCIT v. Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd. (2023) 459 ITR 242 / 295 Taxman 200 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Undisclosed liability-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S.69A, 69B, 69C, 132]

PCIT (Central) v. Regent Beers & Wines Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 565 (MP)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Capital-Loan-No incriminating material was found-Block assessment order-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed by the High Court on merit. [S. 68, 148, 260A]

CIT v. Deepsons Southened (2023) 295 Taxman 506 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Settlement Commission-Undisclosed income-Bogus share capital-Undisclosed income taxed in the assessment of flagship company-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 132(4), 245D, 260A]

PCIT, Central v. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 745 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Valuation of shares-Book value of assets-.Formula adopted by the Assessing Officer is not applicable to the relevant assessment year-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed by the High Court. [S. 56(2)(viib), R.11UA]

PCIT v. Minda SM Technocast (P.) Ltd. (2023) 295 Taxman 517/ 334 CTR 920 / (2024) 460 ITR 7 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Non-resident India-Sale of residential flat-Invested sale proceeds from same, in a residential house in USA within specified period-Entitle to exemption-Amendment in section 54F by Finance (no.2) Act of 2014 imposing condition that assessee should invest sale proceeds arising out of a sale of capital asset in a residential property situated ‘in India’ within stipulated period is prospective in nature-Rejection of revision application is not valid-Entitle to exemption..Interpretation – Legistaive intend – Amending the provision- Retrospectivity – Not unless expressly stated and clearly implied .[S. 5(2), 139(5), 143(1), 254, 264, Art. 226]

Hemant Dinkar Kandlur v. CIT (IT) (2023) 295 Taxman 644 /(2024) 462 ITR 67 /337 CTR 991(Bom.)(HC)

S. 54B : Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Purchased land in name of wife-Not entitle to exemption. [S. 45]

Bahadur Singh v. CIT (Appeals) (2023) 154 taxmann.com 456 (P& H)(HC) Editorial: SLP dimissed, Bahadur Singh v. CIT (Appeals) (2023) 295 Taxman 313 (SC)