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. 28(i) : Business income-Capital gains-Two provisions operate in distinct and independent fields-Mere receipt not sufficient to attract charge Commercial realisability required-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade Nature of stock-in-trade wholly different from investment-No exception contemplated in case of business assets-Shares received on amalgamation-Shares held as stock-in-trade-Profit taxable as business profits-Burden on department to establish and Tribunal to apply the principles to evidence on record-Charge attracted only upon allotment of new shares-Not on appointed date or date of court sanction. [S. 2(1B), 2(14), 2(47), 28, 45(1), 47(vii) Art. 136]
Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2026) 484 ITR 641 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nalwa Investment Ltd (2020) 427 ITR 229 (Delhi)(HC), affirmed.
S.14A: Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Disallowance is not attracted where there is no income exempt from tax-Disallowance is restricted to the extent of exempt income-Finance Bill, 2022, declaring that amendment to take effect from 1-4-2022 and accordingly applies in relation to assessment year 2022-2023 and subsequent assessment years-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [R.8D]
PCIT v. Alchemist Ltd. [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. UNO Menda Ltd [2024] 167 taxmann.com 284 /(2026) 484 ITR 48 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Tribunal affirmed and applied proviso to section 2(15) to disentitle exemption under sections 11 and 12-Assessment year under consideration expenditure exceeded donations and no retention of income but deficit of seven per cent-Proviso to section 2(15) not attracted and denial of exemption unsustainable. [S. 2(15), 12AA]
Give Foundation v. JCIT (2026) 484 ITR 602 /308 Taxman 38 (Guj)(HC)
S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Scientific research expenditure – Expenditure not approved by DSIR for weighted deduction – Ordinary deduction allowable if expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business – Deduction allowed u/s 37(1).[ S. 35(2AB ) ]
Manugraph India Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .
S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Rent paid to directors for farmhouse used for accommodation of foreign customers – Business purpose partly established – Personal use not ruled out – Disallowance restricted to 50 per cent. [ S.40A(2)(b) ]
Manugraph India Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .
S. 14A: Disallowance of expenditure relating to exempt income – For the purpose of Rule 8D, only investments which have actually yielded exempt income during the year can be considered – No disallowance of interest where own funds exceed investments – Presumption that investments are made out of interest-free funds. [R. 8D(2)(ii), 8D(2)(iii)]
Manugraph India Ltd. v. ACIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org
S. 69: Unexplained investments – Property purchased in the name of daughter – Entire consideration paid directly by father from disclosed bank account out of natural love and affection – Identity of father, payment trail and source of funds established – Absence of formal gift deed cannot justify addition – Addition deleted. [S. 148A, 147, 115BBE]
Sameena Shamsuddin Sayed v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org .
Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
S. 4: Undisclosed foreign income and assets-Offences and prosecution-Personal appearance of accused Effect of section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure-Discretion to dispense with personal appearance Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 205.
Gaurav Kumar Chopra v. UOI (2025) 483 ITR 324 (Cal)(HC)
S. 285BA : Obligation to furnish annual information return-Penalty-No proper explanation for delay-Imposition of penalty justified [S.273B, Art. 226]
Sub Registrar, Sri. V.G. Cleetus v. DIT (IT) (2023) 154 taxmann.com 546 / (2025) 483 ITR 21 (Ker)(HC)