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. 68 : Cash credits-Speculation profit-Purchase and sales of commodities-Not registered stock broker-Genuineness of claim was not established-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 115BBE, 133(6)]

Bhag Chand Chhabra v. PCIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com 32(Cal.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed ; Bhag Chand Chhabra v. Pr. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 171 / 113 CCH 166 (SC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Investment in shares, mutual funds and debentures-Short term capital gains-Not assessable as business income-Rule of consistency followed. [S. 28(i)]

PCIT v. Purvanchal Leasing Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 20/113 CCH 288 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Sale of property below circle rate-AO has the jurisdiction to examine the transaction to compute true capital gains. [S. 50C, R. 11UA, Art. 226]

Avantha Realty Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 315/212 DTR 399/ 326 CTR 247 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment-Electricity-Interim order to deposit electric duty-Money deposited in escrow account-Did not satisfy requirement of amount having been actually paid-Disallowance is held to be justified. [S. 43B(1)]

Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 320/ 212 DTR 177/326 CTR 161 (Orissa)(HC)Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed , Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 289 Taxman 146 (SC)

S. 40A(2) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Excessive or unreasonable-Remuneration to director-Bonus to directors-Rule of consistency-Deletion of addition is held to be justified. [S. 36(1)(ii), 40A(2)(b), Payment of Bonus Act, 1965]

PCIT v. BMO Advisors (P) Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 431 / CCH 5 /( 2023)451 ITR 389(Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Foreign travel expenditure-Directors-Failure to file any details-Justified in in disallowing 20 per cent of expenditure.

Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 320/212 DTR 177/326 CTR 161 (Orissa)(HC).Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed , Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 289 Taxman 146 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Stock in trade-Interest paid towards broken period on such securities allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 333/ 113 CCH 336 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Referral fees to Doctors-Prohibited by law-Not allowable as revenue expenditure. [Medical Council (Professional Conducts, Etiquettes and Ethics) Regulation Act, 2002 Regulations, 6.4, 6.8 and 8.1].

Peerless Hospitex Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 447 ITR 60/213 DTR 81/326 CTR 249 /287 Taxman 711 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital-liquidation damages/pre-payment charges-Own interest free funds-Expenditure incurred towards payment of interest on borrowed funds was to be allowed as deduction.

PCIT v. Power Links Transmission Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 327/114 CCH 16 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation-Lease of assets-Financial transactions-Failure to provide lease agreements-Matter remanded [S. 143(3), 254(1)].

Maharashtra Apex Corpn. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 310 /113 CCH 337 (Karn.)(HC)