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.119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Instructions-Circular-Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies-Application for condonation of delay-Relied on report which is not made available to the petitioner-Order is not passed or signed by the Member who has given personal hearing-Principles of natural justice would require that revenue should have made available a copy of report received by them from Field Authorities to assessee and given them an opportunity to explain or show cause-Matter remanded to Central Board of Direct Taxes with directions. [S. 115BAB, 119 (2)(b), Form No 10-ID, Art. 226]

Tata Autocomp Gotion Green Energy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT (2024) 299 Taxman 282 /464 ITR 61 / 340 CTR 942(Bom.)(HC)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Disallowance made under section 14A could not be considered for computing MAT.[S. 14A, R.8D]

PCIT v. Moon Star Securities Trading & Finance Co. (P.) Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 53 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-
International transaction-Written Down Value of assets as may be reflected in books would not be liable to be taken into consideration while answering issue of ALP-No substantial question of law. [S. 260A, R.10B]

PCIT v. Sarens Heavy Lift India (P.) Ltd. (2024)299 Taxman 293 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax- International transaction-AMP expenses-High Court held that approach of TPO of determining ALP of such AMP expenditure either on BLT bases or TNMM could not be sustained-SLP is granted to the Revenue. [S.92B, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Yakult Danone India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 452 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Yakult Danone India (P.) Ltd(2023) 154 taxmann.com 470 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings-Services to buyers by way of repair and maintenance of moulds sold to them and charged job work charges for such services-No direct nexus with business activity of manufacture and sale of moulds-Not entitle to deduction.[S. 260A]

Rajesh Kumar Drolia (HUF) v. CIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 296 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Sale of various items of scrap-Eligible deduction-Tax effect is below threshold limits-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 80HH, 268A, Art. 136]

CIT v. Nirma Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 180 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nirma Ltd (2015) 229 Taxman 535 (Guj)(HC)

S. 80HHC : Export business-Interest from business debtors-Allowable as deduction-Tax effect is below threshold limits-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 268A, Art. 136]

CIT v. Nirma Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 180 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nirma Ltd (2015) 229 Taxman 535 (Guj)(HC)

S. 80HHC : Export business-When certain profit is to be excluded from claim of deduction under sections 80HH, 80I and 80HHC, it is not gross profit but net thereof, that is, gross profit minus expenditure incurred for earning such profit which should be excluded-Tax effect is below threshold limits-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 80HH, 80I, 268A, Art. 136]

CIT v. Nirma Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 180 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Nirma Ltd (2015) 229 Taxman 535 (Guj)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation-CBDT, vide Circular No. 8 of 2022 dated 31-3-2022, extended time limit with respect to both existing trusts and new trusts for registrations under sections 10(23C), 12A and 80G(5)-CBDT circular did not grant extension to new trusts for filing forms for application-Clause 5(ii) of circular No. 6/2023, dated 24-5-2023 was arbitrary and violative of article 14 of Constitution of India and accordingly, would be ultra vires Constitution. [S.10(23C), 12A, 80G(5), 119(2)(b), Art. 14, 226]

Sri Nrisimha Priya Charitable Trust v. CBDT (2024) 299 Taxman 257 /338 CTR 713 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Photocopy of an alleged agreement to sell-Addition is not justified-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.[S.260A]

PCIT v. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (Smt.) (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (Delhi)(HC)