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. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business loss-Unexplained investments-Search-Unaccounted silver-Penalty or confiscation-Loss on account of confiscation-Not allowable as business loss. [S. 28(i), 37(1), Expln. 69A, 115BBE]

CIT v. Prakash Chand Lunia (Decd. Through Lrs) and Another (2023)454 ITR 61/ 293 Taxman 229 / 332 CTR 261/ 225 DTR 57 (SC) Editorial : Order of Jaipur Bench of Rajasthan High court, reversed, IT v. Prakash Chand Lunia (Decd. Through Lrs) And Another (Raj(HC) (ITA No. 96 of 2003 & ITR NO. 6 OF 1996 DT. 22-11-2016)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Lease of assets-Lease rent assessed as business income in the assessment of lessor-lease rent should be allowed as deduction-Revenue cannot contend that the assessee is the owner. [S. 32, Art. 132]

CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 584 / 292 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Narmada Chematur Petrochemicals Ltd (Guj)(HC)(ITA No. 1037 of 2013 dt. 28-1-2014)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Final difference in rate paid at end of accounting year-Allowable as deduction. [S. 145]

CIT (Central) v. Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 434/ 293 Taxman 603 /334 CTR 218 (SC) Editorial: Affirmed, CIT (Central) v. Kolhapur Zilla Sahkari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd (2009) 315 ITR 304 (Bom)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Expenditure on replacement of remembraning in membrane cell plant-No material to show membrane itself could be treated as separate and independent machine-Revenue expenditure.

CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 808 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 237 (Guj)(HC), affirmed. CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd (2017) 10 ITR-OL 275 (Guj)(HC), affirmed.

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt-Amounts written off-Agreements with sister concern for take over and assignment of certain book debts-Order of tribunal allowing the bad debt is affirmed.[S. 36(2), 260A]

CIT v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 11 (Mad)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue dismissed, CIT v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 14 (SC)

S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt-Money lending business-Debts taken over from sister concern-Allowed as deduction-SLP of Revenue dismissed. [S. 36(2), Art, 136]

CIT v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 14/ 293 Taxman 504 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 11 / 151 taxmann.com 427 (Mad)(HC), affirmed.

S. 32 : Depreciation-Revised return-Withdrawing claim to depreciation-Assessing Officer granting depreciation under amended provisions-Held to be not permissible. [S. 32(1), Expln.5]

ACIT v. G. E. Lighting (I) P. Ltd (2023)454 ITR 285/ 293 Taxman 435/ 333 CTR 129/ 227 DTR 73 (SC) CIT v. Southern Petro-Chemical Industries (2023)454 ITR 285/ 293 Taxman 435/ 333 CTR 129/ 227 DTR 73 (SC) Editorial: Decision of Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court, affirmed. CIT v. G. E. Lighting (I) P. Ltd (Guj)(HC) (ITA No. 325 of 2009 dt.8-3-2010, CIT v. Southern Petro-Chemical Industries (Mad)(HC) (TA No. 442 of 2005 dt.25-4-2012)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Shortage of coal-Deletion of addition is affirmed. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Durgapur Projects Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 367/ 333 CTR 158/ 227 DTR 35 (Cal)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Unabsorbed depreciation-Carry forward and set off-Amalgamation of companies-Relates back to appointed date-Business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of transferor company allowable. [S. 32, 72]

PCIT v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 421/ 293 Taxman 496/ 332 CTR 731/ 225 DTR 206 (SC) Editorial : Affirmed, CIT v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (Guj)(HC) (ITA No. 311 of 2019 dt. 23-7-2019)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Capital asset-Business income or short-term capital gains-Sale of Development Rights in property-Stock in trade-Sale consideration received by builder was held to be assessable as business income-Provisions of S. 50C was held to be not applicable-Recorded in the balance sheet-Matter remanded to Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits to consider whether transaction a sale of capital assets or of stock-in-trade. [S. 2(14), 45,50C, 145, Art. 136]

CIT v. Glowshine Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 249/ 293 Taxman 517/ 332 CTR 489/ 225 DTR 241 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Glowshine Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd (2018) 405 ITR 540 (Bom)(HC), order of High Court set aside and matter remanded to Tribunal.