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. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Commission-Non-resident agents-Payments were made outside India-Not having a permanent establishment in India-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Allowable as deduction-DTAA-India-France-Italy-Greece-Lebanon. [S. 37(1)]

CIT (Dy.) v. Creations by Shanagar (2024) 111 ITR 7(SN) (Mum)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Salary-Deducted TDS and deposited it in the government account within the specified time-Disallowance of salary cost is not justified.[S. 192]

Ayesa Ingenieria Y Arquitectura S. A. v. ACIT (IT) (2024) 111 ITR 61(SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Audit of accounts-Ad-hoc disallowance-Order of CIT(A) disallowing the ad-hoc disallowance is affirmed. [S.44AB]

ACIT v. Merchant Agri Global P. Ltd. (2024)111 ITR 45 (Trib) (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Employee Stock Option (ESOP)-Allowable as business expenditure.

Dy. CIT v. CBRE South Asia (P.) Ltd [2024] 163 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Bogus purchase-Rough diamonds-Estimate addition-Estimated the profit @ 3% of the polished diamonds and @5% of the rough diamonds. [S. 143(3)]

Shine Star v. ACIT (Mum)(Trib) (UR)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-ROC filing fees paid for increase in share capital-Not allowable as revenue expenditure.

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. The DCIT(Ahd)(Trib)(UR)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Prior period expense-Method of accounting-Not proved with necessary evidence-Commission-Lack of evidence-Disallowance is affirmed. [S. 145]

Raj Auto Wheels P Ltd v. ACIT (No.1) (2024) 111 ITR 199 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ad-hoc basis-Books of account not rejected-Disallowance of expenses and purchase differences-Revenue stamps not affixed-Books of accounts audited-Purchase differences reconciled with suppliers-Ad hoc disallowance not sustainable.[S. 133(6), 145]

Pankaj Kumar Kasera v. ITO (2024) 112 ITR 1 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Work-in-progress-Out of own funds and borrowed funds-Disallowance is deleted.

Gujarat Infrapipes P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)111 ITR 47 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-Consistent methodology Interest-free advance given to an individual for the purpose of business was held to be genuine and allowable.

ITO v. Jamna Auto Industries; (2024) 111 ITR 569 /229 TTJ 209/239 DTR 57 (Chd)(Trib.)