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. 45: Capital gains – When the Tribunal held that no capital gains can be levied since there is no consideration for transfer of a capital asset and thus the computation mechanism fails, there was no error in the said conclusion reached by the Tribunal. [ S. 48, 50D ]

PCIT v. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd. (2022) 212 DTR 457/ 327 CTR 350 (Bom)( HC)

S. 40(a)(ii) : Amounts not deductible – Rates or tax – Education cess- In view of retrospective amendment vide Finance Act, 2022 to section 40(a)(ii), education cess paid not allowable as an expenditure [ S. 37(1) ]

JCIT v. Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. (2022) 220 DTR 481 (SC) / (2023) 450 ITR 164 /291 Taxman 438/ 330 CTR 110 (SC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Commission and sitting fees to directors – Amended provision of section 194J is not applicable – Deletion of addition is justified [ S. 194H , 194J ]

PCIT v. EIH Ltd ( 2022) 329 CTR 95/ 218 DTR 389 (Cal)( HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Professional and consultancy charges – Explanation 4 was not on the statute -Deletion of addition is justified [ S. 9(1)(vi)), 195 ]

PCIT v. EIH Ltd ( 2022) 329 CTR 95/ 218 DTR 389 (Cal)( HC)

S. 32 : Depreciation -Windmills – Income offered – Depreciation is allowable .

CIT v. KBD Sugar & Distilleries Ltd. (2022) 220 DTR 483 / 144 taxmann.com 38 (Karn) (HC)

S .14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Failure to record satisfaction – Deletion of addition is justified. [ R. 8D ]

PCIT v. EIH Ltd ( 2022) 329 CTR 95/ 218 DTR 389 (Cal)( HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Followed direction of Commissioner-Subsequent revision order was quashed. [S. 54F, 143(3)]

Karumanchi Nalini (Dr.) v. ITO (2022) 196 ITD 673 (Visakha) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Consideration as per sale deed and whether tolerance limit of 10 per cent for difference between sale consideration as per sale deed and SDV is to be considered or not are debatable issues-Revision is bad in law. [S. 56(2)(vii)(b)]

Shanmuga Sundaram Govindaraj v. ACIT (2022) 196 ITD 576 / 218 TTJ 988 / 216 DTR 329 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash deposit in the Bank-Un explained money-AIR information flagged-Non-filer of returns-Revisionary powers could not be permitted to be exercised on suspicions and inferences-Revision order was quashed. [S. 44AD, 69A]

Pawan Kumar v. ITO (2022) 196 ITD 378 / 220 TTJ 86 / 219 DTR 267 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Document Identification No. (DIN)-Revision order passed manually without Document Identification No. (DIN) in its body-Held to be invalid and deemed to have never been issued.

Tata Medical Centre Trust v. CIT(E) (2022) 196 ITD 302 / (2023) 222 TTJ 249 (Kol.)(Trib.)