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. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Sale of industrial plot of land with an office builtup area on ground floor and so-called residential built up area on first floor-Not entitled to deduction u/s. 54 of the Act-Allowed deduction u/s. 54F [S. 54F]

Chain Singh Mundra v. ITO (2022) 194 ITD 718 / 216 TTJ 761 / 211 DTR 377 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Land appurtenant-Sale of plot-Entitle to exemption-Cost of costly items purchased for the new house cannot be held to be treated as investment for making the house habitable-Not entitled to exemption. [S. 45, 54F]

Charu Agarwal v. Dy. CIT(IT) (2022) 194 ITD 478/ 216 TTJ 428 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Transfer of property in the preceding year-Transfer of property took place on execution of sale deed in the preceding year, the amount of capital gains cannot be charged to tax for the assessment year. [S. 2(47)(i), 147, 148, Transfer of Property Act,1882, S. 53A, Indian Registration Act, 1908, S. 17, 49, 171(IA)]

Beena Shammi Choudhari (Smt.) v. ITO (2022) 64 CCH 119 / 216 TTJ 888 / 214 DTR 185 (SMC) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Refund of Excise duty, subject to condition is liable to tax during the year of receipt.

Frick India Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 146 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payer and payee comply with the first proviso to S. 201(1)-No disallowance can be made. [S. 201(1)]

Milind Kumar Rana v. ACIT (2022) 216 TTJ 43 (UO) (Raipur)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Commission paid to a resident of UAE-Not liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance is not justified. [S 195]

ACIT v. Jiji Industries Ltd. (2022) 64 CCH 0360 / 216 TTJ 858 / 212 DTR 81 (Indore)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Provisions made towards ‘periodic overlay expenses’-Not Contingent liability-If the same can be determined with some reasonableness-Allowable as deduction. [S. 80IA, (4)(i), 145]

GVK Jaipur Expressway (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 540 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Prior Period expenses-Tax deducted in the financial year-Settlement on the rent in the year under consideration-Allowable. [S. 145]

Kamla Retail Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 483 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business loss-Capital or revenue-Acquiring company-Investment in subsidiaries-Write off expenditure-Acquiring business-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 28(i)]

Refex Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 216 TTJ 633 / 212 DTR 178 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Rejection of books of account-Adhoc disallowance on suspicion and conjectures, without rejecting the books of account not justified. [S. 145]

ACIT v. Mangaldeep (2022) 216 TTJ 102 / 211 DTR 7 (Surat)(Trib.)