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. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Valuation for the purposes of Stamp Duty-Development rights-Assessee holding the land title in her name only for technical purposes-development rights of the land transferred to the partnership firm where assessee was a partner-.Assignment of development rights provision is not applicable. [S. 45]
Dy.CIT v. Minal Urmil Shah (2025) 233 TTJ 805/ 211 ITD 136 / (Ahd) (Trib)
S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Special provision for computation of full value consideration (Amendment)-difference between sale consideration and stamp duty-Stamp Duty Value of the Property purchase and Purchase consideration is less than the tolerance band of 10%-Provisions of Section 56(2)(x)-The assessee is entitled to the benefit of the tolerance limit of 6.56%.. [S. 56(2)(x)]
Saggar Parimmal. ITO (Mum)(Trib) (UR) Ketan Kumar Sagar v. ITO (Mum) (Trib) (UR)
S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Stamp duty value of the property-Date of agreement-The AO is directed to consider the stamp duty value of the property, as on the date of agreement i.e. 03.06.2002/19.06.2002, as mentioned in the sale deed itself and recompute the capital gain/tax liability accordingly.[S.45]
Gupta Enterprises v. ACIT (Vishaka Pattanam) (Trib)(UR)
S. 50 :Capital gains-Depreciable assets-Block of assets-Rate of tax-Deeming fiction is to be confined only to section 50 and it could not convert short term capital asset into long term capital asset and vice versa for other purpose of Act-Rate of tax would be in terms of section 112 at rate of 20 percent and not 30 percent.[S. 2(29AA) 2(29B), 2(42A), 45, 48,49, 112(1)]
SKF India v. DCIT. [2025] 121 ITR 307/ 210 ITD 1 (SB)(Mum)(Trib)
S. 47(vi) : Transaction not regarded as transfer-Capital gains-Amalgamation-When transaction specifically falls under the said section-Addition under section 56(2)(x) is not valid. [S. 28(iv), 56(2)(x)]
Dy.CIT v. Samagra Wealthmax (P) Ltd.(2025) 233 TTJ 651 (Mum) (Trib)
S. 45: Capital gains-Capital loss-Assessee, a Foreign Portfolio Investor incorporated in United Kingdom-entered into Forward Foreign Exchange contracts (FCC) with a bank to hedge amounts invested in Indian securities-loss incurred on rollover/cancellation of FCC was in nature of short-term capital loss eligible for carry forward under head ‘capital gains’. [S.74]
ACIT v. Emerging Markets Ltd. (2025) 210 ITD 494 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 44C: Non-residents-Head office expenditure-Double taxation relief-Article 7(3) of the DTAA between India and UAE-Asessee claimed deduction u/s. 44C-AO allowed only 5% of the adjusted total income as deduction-Held, Art. 7(3) cannot be applied retrospectively-Held, deduction allowed without imposing restriction u/s. 44C-Expenditure incurred outside India exclusively for operations of Indian branches would not fall within ambit of section 44C hence allowable in full-DTAA-India-Dubai [S. 90,Art.7(3), 25(1)]
Mashreq Bank PSC v Dy.CIT (IT) (2025) 233 TTJ 881 / 211 ITD 511 (SB)(Mum)(Trib)
S.43CA: Transfer of assets-other than capital assets-Full value of consideration-stock in trade-Agreement value-Stamp valuation-Date of agreement fixing value of consideration and date of registration of such transfer not same-Stamp duty value as on date of agreement for sale should be considered as full value of consideration for purpose of computing profits and gains from transfer of flat-Addition is deleted. [S. 45]
Arihant Associates v. ACIT (2025) 210 ITD 149 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 43B: Interest tax liability for AYs:1993-94 to 1997-98 arose to assessee during relevant assessment year 2018-19 by way of order giving effect to order of High Court-liability was discharged by assessee during relevant year allowable as business expenditure.
Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Ltd v. DCIT [2025] 121 ITR 288 /172 taxmann.com 346 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Business expediency-If the payment is necessary for business operations and is not made with fraudulent intent, disallowance u/s. 40A(3) may not be required, even if the payment exceeds the prescribed limit.
Munish Arora v. ACIT [2025] 210 ITD 408 (Chd)(Trib.)