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. 44AD: Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Unexplained investment-Demonetization-Cash deposits in books-Source of cash deposits explained-VAT return-Declared sales-Sales not doubted-The additions cannot be made as cash credits or unexplained investment.[S. 68, 69]

Mohit Sukhija v. NFA (2025) 213 ITD 251 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 44AD : Presumptive basis-Cash credits-Bank deposits-Treated as turnover-Assessing Officer had not shown that such deposits were different from business receipts; addition as sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) was deleted.[S.68]

Jatin Arora. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 173 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.43B: Deductions on actual payment-VAT payment-Fake challan-No actual payment-Addition was justified-Deduction-LIC premium-Failure to produce evidence-Disallowance was affirmed. [S.80C]

Ganga Reddy Gidde. v. ITO (2025) 213 ITD 692 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Leave encashment-Disallowed earlier years-Settled by filing an application under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024-Allowable as a deduction on a payment basis. [S.43B(f)]

Universal Cables Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 213 ITD 428 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 40A(2): Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Gold and precious metals-lower authorities had neither referred to nor relied upon any objective market data to determine the fair value of purchases-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT (A) for fresh adjudication.[S. 40A(2)(a)]

ITO v. Khetalaji Gold (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 607 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Provision made for future expenditure-Matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. [S. 145]

ACIT v. Delhi Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 291 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident –Royalty-Payments made towards internet, broadband and bandwidth charges to foreign parties did not constitute royalty-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S.9(1)(vi), 195]

DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 453 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident –Amount paid to a foreign company towards management fees-Tax deducted and deposited-No addition could be made under section 40(a)(i), or the payment can be held to be as unexplained expenditure under section 69C.[S, 69C, 195]

ACIT v. Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Site maintenance expenditure-Ad-hoc disallowance of 30 per cent-Disallowance restricted to 10 percent of expenditure.

Bollineni Developers Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 213 ITD 635 (Hyd)(Trib.)

S.37(1): Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Licence fee for use of software-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

ACIT v. Matrix Publicities and Media India (P.) Ltd. (2025) 213 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)