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. 36(1)(va): Any sum received from employees-Delayed employees’ PF/ESI contributions on ground that figures in Form 3CD included both employer’s and employees’ portions-Matter was remanded to the file of CIT(A) to verify actual delay, segregate employer’s and employees’ contributions, and restrict disallowance only to employees’ share deposited after statutory due dates.[S.43B, 143(1)]
Atamjeet Singh Sandhu. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 181 (Chd) (Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital-Advances to group concerns at lower interest-No disallowance if assessee’s own funds exceed interest-free advances-Nexus established between borrowings and business use-Ad hoc disallowance based on average rate unjustified-Addition is deleted. [S. 40A(2)(b)]
Milestone Merchandise P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 122 ITR 186 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital-Addition was based on mere guesswork and surmises, and the same was deleted.
Khandelwal Industries. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 667 (Raipur) (Trib.)
S. 36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital-Commercial expediency-Interest allowed in earlier year-The principle of commercial expediency applied mutatis mutandis to the corresponding portion, and such disallowance was not warranted.[S. 251]
Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 215 ITD 401 (Hyd) (Trib.)
S. 35AC: Expenditure on eligible projects or schemes-Donations-Had valid approval at the time of payment-Information from Investigation wing-No evidence that donation was bogus or returned cash-Subsequent withdrawal of approval or cancellation of registration under section 12AA(3) could not justify disallowance of deduction under section 35AC of the Act. [S.12AA(3), 35AC(6), 131, 132, 143(3),147, 148]
Raman and Weil (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 215 ITD 514 (Mum) (Trib.)
S. 35 : Expenditure on scientific research-Business expenditure on in-house R&D facility-Claimed weighted deducted-AO denied as Form 3CL was missing-Held, post amendment, Form 3CL is a requisite for claiming deduction under S. 35(2AB)-Not entitled to deduction. [S.35(2AB]
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 234 TTJ 372/ 172 taxmann.com 42 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 35: Expenditure on scientific research-Entitled to claim deduction under S. 35(2AB) even in respect of expenditure incurred prior to approval date, i.e. from 1-4-2019.[S.35(2AB]
Kaisha Lifesciences P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 123 ITR 589/ 172 taxmann.com 48 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 35: Expenditure on scientific research-Business expenditure-Withdrew higher claim-Entitled to 100% deduction of revenue expenses under section 35(1)(i) and depreciation on R&D assets under section 32(1).[S. 32(1), 35(1)(i), 35(2AB), 43(4), Form 3CL]
Malwa Oxygen & Industrial Gases (P.) Ltd. v. ITO NFAC, Delhi (2025) 215 ITD 503 (Indore)(Trib.)
S. 35: Expenditure on scientific research-Approval was granted by DSIR during the previous year-Entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of entire expenditure incurred under section 35(2AB)[S.35(2AB)]
DCIT v. Anand NVH Products (P.) Ltd. (2025) 215 ITD 98 (Delhi) (Trib.)