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. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Business of civil construction – Payment through banking channels – Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Sanjay Dhokad [2023] 456 ITR 77/ 293 Taxman 482 /150 taxmann.com 362 (Bom)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Contract business-Civil works for the State Government and semi-Government agencies. Failure to produce certain suppliers – Estimated net profit at 12. 5 Per cent on alleged bogus purchases – Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 37(1), 68, 145]

PCIT v. Ram Builders (2023) 146 taxmann.com 447 / 454 ITR 444 (Bom)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information was received from Sales Tax Department-Sales was not disputed-Purchases cannot be deleted-Matter remanded to the Tribunal only to the limited extent of going into gross profit rate. [S. 145, 148], 254(1), 260A

PCIT v. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia [2023] 457 ITR 446/291 Taxman 469 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure- Cash credit -Bogus purchases- Entire purchases cannot be disallowed – Only profit element embedded on alleged purchases can be added. [S. 37(1), 68, 133(6), 145]

PCIT v. Vishwashakti Construction [2023] 454 ITR 448 / 293 Taxman 455(Bom.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or Revenue-Development of new product expenses-Shown as capital work in progress- Project abandoned – Capital work in progress written off as revenue expenditure – No new asset came into existence which would be of an enduring benefit to assessee- Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 145]

PCIT v. Trigent Software Ltd. [2023] 147 taxmann.com 52 / 330 CTR 312 (Bom)(HC)

S. 32A : Investment allowance – Additional cost – Foreign exchange fluctuations – The increase or reduction in the liability has to take place only in the year of fluctuation and it does not relate back to the year of acquisition of the asset- Entitle to additional cost in the year of acquisition. [S. 32, 43A]

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 293 (Bom)(HC)

S.14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income – Assessing Officer had not recorded any satisfaction that working of inadmissible expenditure under section 14A by assessee was incorrect, interest expenditure could not be disallowed. [R. 8D (2)(ii)]

PCIT v. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. [2023] 149 taxmann.com 222 / 292 Taxman 497 (Bom)(HC)

S. 10 (23C) : Educational institution- American Trust Established In India Solely for educational purposes with permission granted by Central Government – American organisation incurring expenses in support of Indian Trust and repatriating amounts to it-Amounts received utilised for purposes of education in India-Entitled to exemption. [S. 10(23C)(vi), 10(22), 11(5), Art. 226]

Laura Entwistle v. UOI [2023] 454 ITR 345 / 148 taxmann.com 251 / 292 Taxman 429/ 333 CTR 172/ 226 DTR 401 (Bom.)(HC)

The Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

S. 2(8) : Benami property – Attachment of property – Transactions took place before amendment Act came into force- Criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings could not be initiated for transaction entered into prior to coming into force of Amendment Act, 2016- Provisional order of attachment and order of reference was quashed. [ S. 24, Art, 226]

Parvesh Construction (P.) Ltd. v. UOI ( 2023] 150 taxmann.com 427 (Bom)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, (2020) 422 ITR 121(St)

S. 3: Amount payable by declarant – Disputed tax – Amount paid by assessee under IDS, 2016 which was lying with revenue should be adjusted while determining tax payable by assessee under DTVSV Act. [S. 4, Finance Act, 2016, S. 191 ]

Sunil Wamanrao Sakore v. UOI [2023] 293 Taxman 644/ 152 taxmann.com 132 / 454 ITR 659 / 332 CTR 641 (Bom)(HC)