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. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Reimbursement of expatriate employees salaries-Net margin method-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 37(1), 92C, 92CA, R.10A(d), 260A]
CIT v. Benetton India Pvt. Ltd. (2025) 476 ITR 404 / 171 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Royalty-Most appropriate method-SLP of revenue dismissed. [Art. 136]
ACIT v. Cummins India Ltd.(2025) 476 ITR 158 /304 Taxman 604 (SC) Editorial : Cummins India Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 294 Taxman 619/ 335 CTR 387 / (2024) 470 ITR 184 (Bom)(HC)
S. 80IC : Special category States-Industrial undertaking-Approval of local or State authority-Section 80-IC(2)(b)(ii) does not require such agreement or approval-Requirement under rule 18BBB(4) and form 10CCB cannot be read as mandatory where parent provision does not stipulate it-The issue not constituted grounds of appeal-Tribunal erred in examining the issue not constituted grounds of appeal-Order of Tribunal was set aside. [S. 80IC)2)(b)(ii), 80IA(4),254(1), 260A, R.188BBB]
Legacy Foods Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 582 / 172 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)(HC)
S.80IA: Industrial undertakings-Enterprises engaged in infrastructure development-Does not restrict computation of gross total income-Restricts deduction under any other provision under heading C to extent of deduction claimed under section 80IA-The aggregate deduction under section 80IA and other provisions under heading C of Chapter VI-A do not exceed 100 per cent. of the profits of the business of the assessee, is logical and correct. [S. 4(1), 80AB, 80B(5), 80HHC, 80IA(9), Chap. VI-A.]
Shital Fibers Ltd. v. CIT (2025) 476 ITR 309/174 taxmann.com 807 (Three Judges) (SC) Editorial : Associated Capsules Pvt Ltd v.Dy.CIT (2011) 332 ITR 42 (Bom)(HC), approved. ACG Associated Capsules P. Ltd v.CIT(343 ITR 89 (SC), Difference of opinion between two judges, ACIT v. Micro Labs Ltd (2016) 380 ITR 1 (SC), ACIT v. Rogini Garments (2007) 294 ITR (AT) 15 (Chennai)(SB)(Trib)
S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses-Investment business-Capital loss-Notional loss-Fall in value of equity shares-Sale of non-convertible debentures-Order of Tribunal allowing loss as carry forward loss not erroneous. [S 10(2A), 260A]
PCIT v. Adinath Investment and Training Co. (2025) 476 ITR 35 (P & H) (HC)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Real estate business-Order of Tribunal was affirmed-Order of Tribunal was reversed in so far as the purchases from the two parties were concerned-However, the total additions should not exceed the total purchases from them.[S. 68, 133(6), 260A]
PCIT v. Shree Ganesh Developers (2025) 476 ITR 568 /172 taxmann.com 542 (HC)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Purchase of newsprint-Ad hoc disallowance of 15 per cent. reduced to 5 per cent. by Tribunal-Assessee accepting 5 per cent. Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 56, 131, 153(3), 246A, 260A]
CIT v. Jaya Publications (2025) 476 ITR 545 /174 taxmann.com 104 (Mad)(HC)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Information from Investigation Wing-Restriction of disallowance by Tribunal to 6 per cent. justified.[143(3), 147, Art. 226]
PCIT v. Atul Kailashchand Mehta.(2025) 476 ITR 460 (Guj)(HC)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Only income component of disputed purchases taxable-Restriction of disallowance by Tribunal to six per cent. justified. [S. 132, 143(3) 147, 260A]
PCIT v. Amit Tarachand Jain (2025) 476 ITR 74 (Guj) (HC)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application-Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors proved-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-Business expenditure-Income taxed twice-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S.37(1), 133(6), 133A, 145(3), 260A]
PCIT v. Garg Acrylics Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 737 /305 Taxman 285 (Delhi)(HC)