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. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Cultivator and grower-Company engaged in pasteurisation not producer of milk-Disallowance was up held-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Principle of noscitur a sociis. [S. 260A, R.6DD(e)(ii)]
Arasappan Madhivanan v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 169 / 173 taxmann.com 876 (Mad)(HC)
S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible-Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Purchase of jewellery-Failure to show circumstances that required assessee to effect payments in cash-SLP of assessee dismissed. [R. 6DD, Art. 136]
Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2025) 476 ITR 12 /304 Taxman 592 (SC) Editorial : Natesan Krishnamurthy v. ITO (2019) 262 Taxman 127/ 178 DTR 177 / (Mad)(HC)/ (2019) 13 ITR-OL 80 /2019 SCC OnLine Mad 2366)
S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Commission-Discount-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance was deleted. [S. 260A]
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 36(1)(iii) :Interest on borrowed capital-Installation of cell site towers Provision did not contemplate distinction between capital borrowed for revenue or capital purpose-Expansion of business-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to examine aspects pertaining to common pool of funds as framed by Tribunal and cell sites actually brought into use. [S. 37(1), 260A]
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Installation of cell site towers-Lease agreement-Accounting Standard 29-Entitle to depreciation.[S. 260A]
Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. Dy. CTT (2025) 476 ITR 80 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-
Deduction of tax at source-Transactions entered into pertaining to assessment years prior to introduction of Explanation in section 9(1)(vi)-Explanation 4 introduced in section 9(1)(iv) by Finance Act, 20121 cannot have retrospective effect and payment not royalty liable to deduction of tax-Appeal of revenue was dismissed. [S. 9(1)(vi), Expln. 4, 37, 40(a)(ia), 195(2).
CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd 2024] 165 taxmann.com 653 / (2025) 476 ITR 769 (Bom)(HC)
S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Non-resident-Copy right-Subscription fees-SLP of revenue dismissed-DTAA-India-Singapore. [Art. 12(4)(b). Art. 136]]
CIT (IT) v. Sales Force.Com Singapore Pte. Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 8 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Salesforce.com Singapore Pte. Ltd., (2024) 465 ITR 257 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Excise duty exemption Purpose test formulated by Supreme Court Excise duty exemption granted for purpose of industrialisation and generation of employment in States-Excise duty exemption capital receipt-Book profit-Excise duty exemption availed being in nature of capital receipt and not chargeable to tax under normal provisions cannot be added in book profit. [S.115JB]
PCIT v. Greenply Industries Ltd (2025) 476 ITR 347 /304 Taxman 192 (Gauhati)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Income or capital-Sales tax incentive received from State Government under West Bengal Industrial Promotion Scheme-Capital receipt-Appellate Tribunal-Power-The Tribunal has the power to entertain a claim of deduction not claimed before the Assessing Officer by filing revised return. [S. 139,254(1)]
PCIT v. Ritum Jain. (2025) 476 ITR 69 (Cal)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Forfeiture of earnest money arising out of agreement to sale a property is not liable to tax–Income from other sources-Capital receipt-Advance received under agreement to sell-Forfeited-Receipt would go to reduce cost of acquisition of asset-Cannot be assessed as income from other sources-Appeal of revenue dismissed. [S. 51, 56(2)(vi), Art. 136]
CIT v. Meera Goyal (2025) 476 ITR 152 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court affirmed, CIT v. Meera Goyal (2013] 214 Taxman 298 / (2014) 360 ITR 346/267 CTR 265 (Delhi)(HC)