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.54F: Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Owing to the Death of the mother of the assessee, she received 25 per cent of the share in the property in New Delhi-Merely because the assessee had the right to receive the rent w.e.f. 11th July, 2015, the position does not change-Absolute ownership was acquired by the assessee only after mutation. The assessee is the 25 per cent owner of the property; he cannot be held to be the absolute owner of the second property-entitled to exemption. [S. 45]
Deepak Kothari v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 241 / 177 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi) Trib)
S. 54: Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Co-owners-New residential property jointly purchased by assessee and his wife-Actual contribution towards the purchase of the new house is a relevant factor while determining the eligible exemption-AO is directed to verify the proportion of investment made by the assessee and allow the exemption accordingly-Cost of improvement-The assessee has provided the best available documentary evidence in the form of contractor bills and work details, the claim for indexed cost of improvement is allowed to the assesse. [S. 45, 48]
Dilip Mohandas Devani v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 1098 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 50C: Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-The stamp duty paid on the transaction showed a higher stamp duty valuation-No request was made for referring to DVO-The CIT(A) has rightly applied the provisions of S. 50C by adopting the stamp duty value as the full value of consideration in place of the sale deed value.[S. 45]
Dilip Mohandas Devani v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 1098 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 45: Capital gains-Agreement of sale-Registration-Assessee handed over the land to the buyer and also received the sale consideration in asst. yr. 2008-09-Provisions of IT Act apply on the basis of real income and not based on notional income-No provision for increasing sale consideration by notional interest.[S. 48]
Deepak Kothari v. ACIT (2025) 237 TTJ 241 / 177 taxmann.com 219 (Delhi) Trib)
S. 44BB: Mineral oils-Computation-Providing its vessels for transportation to entities engaged in the exploitation/exploration of seabed or subsoil-Section 44BB was not applicable-AO is directed to compute the income of the assessee in terms of art. 21(4) of the India-Norway DTAA-DTAA-India-Norway [S.90, Art, 21]
Sanco Holding AS v. DCIT (IT) (2025) 237 TTJ 936 / 178 taxmann.com 673 (Dehradun) (Trib)
S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-Payment of TDS inadvertently misreported under cl. 26(B)(b) of From No. 3CD-the matter is restored to the jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the correctness of the assessee’s claim and re-adjudicate the allowability of payments under S 43B in accordance with law.
Darshit Gunantbhai Shah v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 359 / 177 taxmann.com 36 ((Ahd)(Trib)
S. 41(1): Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Creditors outstanding for a long time-The amount due to the creditors is not chargeable to tax.
Kumar Urban Development (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 881 (Pune)(Trib)
S. 40A(3): Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Alleged non-genuine purchases-lack of proper enquiry-Matter is restored to the AO with a direction to conduct a de novo assessment on this issue after carrying out proper and comprehensive enquiry regarding various aspects.[S.133(6)]
Shital Vipulkumar Dholakia v. ITO (2025) 237 TTJ 1045 (Ahd)(Trib)
S.40(a)(iib): Amounts not deductible-Business expenditure-Collection and payment of privilege fee, special privilege fee, etc. to the State Government-Disallowance was deleted. [S.37(1), A.P. (Regulation of Trade in Indian made Foreign Liquor, Foreign Liquor) Act, 1993, S 4]
Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 716 / 175 taxmann.com 567 (Hyd)(Trib)
S. 40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fees for technical services-Marketing support services-Payment cannot be taxed in view of the application of provisions of s. 90(2)-Payment made to ADP cannot be disallowed under S. 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under S. 195-DTAA-India-Australia [S. 9(1)(vii), 90(2), 195 Art. 7, 12(3)]
ADP (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 237 TTJ 1080/ 177 taxmann.com 708 (Hyd)(Trib)