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)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Membership/subscription fees to its group company GTIL-Sharing of expenses-Reimbursement of expenses-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-UK. [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 195 Art, 13(4)]
Grant Thornton Advisory (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 216 DTR 119 / 218 TTJ 610/ 140 taxmann.com 348 (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Managerial services charges paid to Non-Residents not Liable to tax at source-Disallowance is not justified-Expenditure on management services-Allowable as business expenditure. [S. 195]
Jt. CIT (OSD) v. Intertek India Pvt. Ltd. (2022)99 ITR 54 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Fees for technical services-Examination fees from students-Foreign Universities-Directly remitted to the Universities-Not to be treated as technical services-Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India-UK-Switzerland. [S. 9(1)(vi), 90, 195, Art. 13]
Dy. CIT v. Hyderabad Educational Institutions (P) Ltd (2022) 218 TTJ 487 (Hyd)(Trib)
S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Reimbursing salary of expatriates to foreign companies-not a fee for technical services-Disallowance not justified. [S. 9(1)(vii), 195]
Toyota Boshoku Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)98 ITR 363 (Bang) (Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-Consignment agents-Government departments-Allowable as deduction. [S. 147, 148]
Dy. CIT v. Alpha Laborities (P) Ltd. (2022) 217 TTJ 1(UO) / 140 taxmann.com 16 (Indore)(Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Coal handling charges-Matter remanded-Delay of 1234 days in filing the appeal was condoned. [S. 40(a)(ia) 254(1)]
Srimaan Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 213 DTR 105 / 217 TTJ 120 (Hyd.)(Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission payment-Consultancy charges-TDS was deducted-Payment by account cheque-Failure to provide the nature of service rendered-Disallowance of payment was affirmed.
Akik Tiles Pvt Ltd. v. JCIT (2022) 95 ITR 77 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Commission-Documents produced-Direct nexus between commission paid and income generated-Even in the absence of any agreement with the commission agent, simply introducing or referring potential customers the commission payment is allowable as deduction.
Dy. CIT v. Ganges International P. L td (2022) 95 ITR 161Chennai) (Trib)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Product development expenses-Allowable as revenue expenditure-Provision for customer claims-Matter restored to Assessing Officer to examine claim in accordance with principles laid down by Supreme Court-Provision for bad and doubtful debts–Matter restored to Assessing Officer.
SKF Engineering and Lubrication India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 24 (Bang)(Trib)
S .37(1) : Business expenditure-Short fall in inventory written off-Allowable as deduction-Purchase of tools allowable as revenue expenditure-Provision for warranty-Allowable as deduction-Lability for erection and commissioning placed upon shoulders of assessee-Provision at rate of one per cent. to three per cent. determined on basis of past experience-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [S. 28(1)]
Bharat Fritz Wermer Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2022) 95 ITR 507 (Bang) (Trib)