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)(iia) : Amounts not deductible-Wealth tax-Matter remanded.

Swan Silk (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 282 Taxman 191 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Credit card expenses-Not produced the evidence-Business development expenses-Foreign Travel Expenses-Not allowable as deduction.

Swan Silk (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 282 Taxman 191 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-10% ad-hoc disallowance-Transport charges-Self made vouchers-Matter remanded for de novo consideration for verification of all documents. [S. 145]

V.C. Arunai Vadivelan v. ACIT (2021) 282 Taxman 90 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Expenditure incurred in violation of statutory provisions-Not allowable as deduction-Explanation 1 [Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957, S. 4(1a), 21]

PCIT v. M. Abdul Zahid (2021) 437 ITR 132 /(2022) 286 Taxman 138 (Karn.) (HC) PCIT v. Jay Minerals (2021) 437 ITR 132 / ( 2022) 286 Taxman 138 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Club membership fees-Club service charges-Membership fee allowable as deduction-Amount spent on services is held to be not allowable.

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 526/ 283 Taxman 427 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Acquisition of equipment-Used by dealer in showrooms-Not allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 32]

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 526/ 283 Taxman 427 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provision for commission-Ad-hoc basis-Not deductible.

Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 438 ITR 536/ 283 Taxman 427 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Ex gratia payments to employees-Allowable as deduction.

CIT v. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 465 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Software expenses-Arrears of wages-Ex-gratia payment-Allowable as business expenditure-Payment made to Registrar of Companies for increasing authorised capital-Not allowable as revenue expenditure.

Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 438 ITR 465 /(2022) 284 Taxman 692 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt-Provision made for bad debts-Banking company-Allowable as deduction though not debited in profit and loss account. [S. 145]

CIT, LTU v. Vijay Bank (2021) 130 taxmann.com 148 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial :SLP was granted to revenue, CIT, LTU v. Vijay Bank (2021) 282 Taxman 296 (SC)