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. 115JA: Company-Book profit-Voluntary retirement scheme-Advertisement expenditure-Order of Tribunal allowing the claim is affirmed. [S.260A]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)

S. 80IB(10): Housing projects-undertaking-Joint venture development agreement with landowners-Failure to produce document-Interpretation of taxing statutes–Exemptions–Strict construction-Order of Tribunal set aside. [S.260A]

CIT v. Indra Housing [2025] 178 taxmann.com 722 / (2026) 484 ITR 3 (Mad)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation-Trust-Charitable purpose-Providing low-cost medical facilities to the public-Entitled to exemption. [S. 12A, Art. 226]

Tilok Tirath Vidyavati Chhuttani Trust v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 316 / 183 taxmann.com 237 (P & H)(HC)

S. 73 : Losses in speculation business –Shares received by assessee through conversion of partly convertible debentures by allotment from company’s own capital-No purchase and sale activity by assessee-Shares allotted to assessee by company from its own capital-Tribunal was not justified in holding that the loss on account of sale of shares was speculation loss and could not be set off against the other income. [S.28(i),]

Abhar Holdings Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 508 / (2026) 484 ITR 612(Guj)(HC)

S. 68: Cash credits-Unsecured loan-Share capital-Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction established-Source of source not required to be explained-Finance Act, 2022 (2022) 442 ITR (St) 91-Addition deleted. [S. 260A]

Sheela Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2026) 484 ITR 486/ 183 taxmann.com 236 (Delhi)(HC))

50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Capital asset-Held by an assessee-Transfer-Lease premises-Provision is applicable to leasehold right-Appeal of assessee dismissed [S. 2(14), 260A]

Vidarbha Veneer Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) v. ITO [2025] 174 taxmann.com 223 /(2026) 484 ITR 132 (Bom)(HC)

S. 44C: Non-residents-Head office expenditure-Broad and inclusive-No indication that “exclusive expenditure”-expenditure exclusively incurred for branch in India, to be excluded from its ambit-“Attributable to”-Encompasses both shared expenses allocated to India branches and exclusive expenses incurred for India branches-Expense was common expense or exclusively for Indian branch not material so long as expense incurred for business or profession-Allowable as deduction-Expenditure incurred outside India-Authorities have not recorded factual finding-Matters remanded to the Tribunal-“Attributable”-“Exclusive”-“Attributable to”-“Derived from”-Interpretation of taxing statues-Strict interpretation-DTAA-India-United States of America. [S.37(1), Art. 7(3),]

DIT (IT) v American Express Bank Ltd. (2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) DIT(IT) v. Oman International Bank S.A. O.G (Now Doha Bank) 2026) 484 ITR 137/ 308 Taxman 246 / 348 CTR 38 / 256 DTR 497 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. [2003] 262 ITR 55/[2004] 134 Taxman 682 (Bom) (HC) disapproved. DIT (IT) v. American Express Bank Ltd. [IT Appeal No. 1294 of 2013, dated 1-4-2015(Bom)(HC) set aside.

S. 41(1): Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Sales tax liability treated as a loan under State Government Scheme-Liability assigned to another party at net present value of sum payable after twelve years-Not cessation of liability-Entire liability to pay stood discharged on assignment. [S. 260A]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)

S.37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Compete fees paid to keep erstwhile partner from doing competing business for seven years. Arrangement to endure for a substantial period, i.e., seven years certain position in the market by keeping the erstwhile partner out-Payment was Capital expenditure.

Sharp Business System v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 496 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial : Reversed in Sharp Business System (Through Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno) v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 509 // 308 Taxman 285 (SC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Payment to employees under voluntary retirement scheme-Revenue expenditure-Advertisement of newly launched products-Tribunal restricting allowance to 10 per cent. Of claim-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 260A]

CIT v. India Cements Ltd [2025] 180 taxmann.com 564 / (2026) 484 ITR 30 (Mad)(HC)