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. 35D : Amortization of Preliminary expenses (General)-Claim of was granted by Assessing Officer-Claim could not be disallowed in subsequent year by Commissioner through his revisionary powers without disturbing decision in initial year —No challenge is made against the rectification. order passed by revenue-SLP disposed as infructuous.[S. 154,263, Art. 136]

CIT v. Subex Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 404 (SC) Editorial: Subex Ltd. v. CIT-III (2021) 132 taxmann.com 96 /285 Taxman 350(Karn)(HC)

S. 35ABB : Licence to operate telecommunication services-Classification of royalty payment as revenue expenditure-Appeal de-tagged for specific consideration. [S. 37(1)]

PCIT v. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 316 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 322 / 458 ITR 593 (SC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Fees for technical services-Revenue from software sales to Indian clients, said revenue could not be treated as royalty and subjected to Indian taxation-DTAA-India-USA [S.9(1)(vii), 195, art. 12, Art.136]

CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 402 (SC) Editorial: CIT (IT) v. Microsoft Regional Sales Pte. Ltd (2024) 159 taxmann.com 278 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(v) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Interest-Other income-Guarantee to various banks to extend credit facilities to its Indian subsidiaries-Guarantee charges were not received by assessee in respect of any debt owed to it by its Indian subsidiary-Guarantee fee would not fall within expression ‘interest’ in article 12 of India UK DTAA –Accrue-Arise-Income-SLP of assessee is dismissed-DTAA-India-UK-Northern Ireland / [S. 2(28A), 5(2), 260A, Art.7, 12(5), 23(3), Art. 136]

Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Co. v. CIT (IT) (2024) 469 ITR 31/ 301 Taxman 392 (SC) Editorial: Johnson Matthey Public Ltd. Company v. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 334 /465 ITR 649 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Book profit – Decapitalization of interest- Failure of Assessing Officer to examine computation of book profits – Order of Tribunal affirming the revision order of Commissioner is affirmed . [S. 32AB, 115J, 260A]

KEC International Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC)(www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1): Penalty – Concealment – Revaluing the asset, introducing it into the partnership, and withdrawing substantial funds, amounted to a device to evade tax rather than a genuine business transaction- The Explanation offered by the Appellant was found to be patently false – Levy of concealment penalty is affirmed . [ S.260A ]

Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd v. CIT ( Bom)( HC) .www.itatonline.org .

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Tribunal in quantum appeal partially allowed deduction under section 54F, Assessing Officer is directed to recompute quantum of penalty. [S. 54EC, 54F]

Maya K. Dharwani. (Smt.) v. ITO (2024) 208 ITD 77 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Corporate social responsibility (CSR)-Allowed deduction under Section 80G-AO’s view is backed by various decisions of Tribunal-Assessment order can not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue.[S.37(1), 80G, 143(3), Companies Act, S. 135]

American Express (India) P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 208 ITD 564 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Penny stock-Failure to make enquires-Revision is held to be valid.[S. 45, 147, 148]

Suresh Kantilal Thakkar. v. PCIT (2024) 208 ITD 395/232 TTJ 659 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Proposal sent by Additional CIT-No independent application of mind-Revision order is quashed. [S.44AD, 68 143(3)]

Rajesh Kumar Jalan v. PCIT (2024) 113 ITR 188 / 208 ITD 349 (Kol) (Trib.)