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. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Paid to Non-Resident for technical services-Amount neither debited to profit and loss account nor claimed as deduction-No disallowance can be made. [S. 37(1), 145]

PCIT v. Linde India Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 682 / 218 DTR 250 / 329 CTR 249/(2023) 291 Taxman 157 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-Residents-Payments were made outside India-Not liable to deduct tax at source.

PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 732 / 219 DTR 154 / 329 CTR 265 (2023) 291 Taxman 205 (SC) PCIT v. Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 732 / 219 DTR 154 / 329 CTR 265 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Loss in hedging contracts with Foreign Exchange dealers and banks-Not speculative allowable as business expenditure. [S. 28(i), 43(5)]

PCIT v. Vedanta Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 732 / 219 DTR 154 / 329 CTR 265 (SC) PCIT v. Matrix Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 732 / 219 DTR 154 / 329 CTR 265 (SC)

S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt-Amounts written off in accounts-Not necessary to prove that amount had become irrecoverable.

CIT v. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 94 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Expenditure on software-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 94 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 35D : Amortisation of preliminary expenses-Premium collected on issued share capital-Not part of capital employed-includible in preliminary expenses for amortisation-Cost of acquisition of companies does not form part of project expenses-Deduction to be distributed in subsequent years. [S. 37(1)]

Subex Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022)448 ITR 309 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Bad debt-No evidence that loss was connected with business-Disallowance of loss is justified. [S. 36(1)(vii), 260A]

Hotel Sri Lakshmi v. ACIT (2022) 448 ITR 139 (Mad)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business Loss-Loss in stock-in-trade-Allowable as business loss.

CIT v. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 94 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Not earned any exempt income-Amendment providing for disallowance even if assessee has not earned exempt income is not retrospective-Precedent-Special Leave petition pending before Supreme Court but order of court not stayed-Binding on Tribunal-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Provision for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be retrospective if it alters or changes Law as it stood. [R. 8D]

PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 448 ITR 674 / 216 DTR 191 / 327 CTR 489 / 288 Taxman 384 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes–Activities charitable in nature-Remanding matter-No substantial question of law. [S. 2(15), 12AA, 260A]

CIT. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (2022) 448 ITR 342 (All)(HC) CIT v. Aligarh Development Authority (2022)448 ITR 342 (All) (HC) CIT v. Haridwar Development Authority (2022)448 ITR 342 (All) (HC).Editorial: SLP of Revenue dismissed , CIT (E) v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (2023)454 ITR 803/ 293 Taxman 449 (SC)/Refer ( 2023) 293 Taxman 171 ( SC)