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. 43B : Certain deductions on actual payment-Tax, duty, cess or fee-Proviso clarifying that sums paid after accounting year but before due date for submission of return deductible is to be treated as retrospective. [ S. 43B ]

Allied Motors (P) Ltd v. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 677/139 CTR 364/91 Taxman 205 (SC)

S. 41(2) : Profits chargeable to tax – Balancing charge – Slump sale – Business as going concern – Gain is liable to tax u/s 41(2) on itemized basis if slump price is determined on valuation of each asset/liability – Body of individuals – Where firm has sold its business as a going concern, surplus arising out of transaction has to be assessed in status of BOI and not as a firm . [ S. 2(31)(iv) , 2(31)(v), 2(42C ) 4, 45 , 50B ]

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co (1997) 227 ITR 260/93 Taxman 357/141 CTR 290 (SC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Failure to deduct tax at source – Payment exceeding Rs. 20,000 to each truck owners – Contract with a cement factory for transporting cement – Payment made to truck operator/owner amounts to payment made to a sub-contractor – Disallowance is not limited only to amount outstanding and this provision equally applies in relation to expenses that had already been incurred and paid by assessee- S. 40(a)(ia) as introduced by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 with effect from 01.04.2005 is applicable to and from assessment year 2005-06 – Amendment by Finance Act 2014 is prospective – Disallowance held to be justified [S. 40A(3) , 194C]

Shree Choudhary Transport Co. v. ITO (2020) 426 ITR 289/192 DTR 161/315 CTR 849/272 Taxman 272 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Capital or revenue – Loan taken on mortgage of fixed assets — Amount spent towards stamps, registration fees, lawyer’s fees, etc. for availing loan – Loan neither an asset nor any business advantage nor any enduring benefit to the assessee – Nature of expenditure incurred in raising a loan not dependent upon nature and purpose of loan – Allowable business expenditure. [Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, 10(2)(xv) ]

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 52 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Termination of services of directors and employees to facilitate take over – Retrenchment compensation an allowable deduction — “Wholly and exclusively” does not mean “necessarily” — Benefit to third party irrelevant [Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 S. 10(2)(xv)]

Sasson J. David Co P. Ltd v. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 261/10 CTR 383/1 Taxman 485 (SC)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Foreign exchange fluctuation loss as on the balance sheet – Allowable as an expenditure. [S. 43A, 145]

CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P.) Ltd. (2009) 312 ITR 254/179 Taxman 326/21 DTR 106/223 CTR 1/213 Taxation 195/13 SCC 1 (SC)

S.37(1) : Business expenditure – Legal expenses incurred for protecting the business of the firm – Held to be allowable business expenditure – Held, finding of fact by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed unless it found to be perverse.

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works v. CIT (2015) 378 ITR 640/280 CTR 521/126 DTR 233 (SC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Method of accounting – Entries in the books of account cannot decide whether a receipt is taxable or not or whether expenses are allowable as deduction or not – Courts are compelled to go by the true nature of the receipts and not go by the entries in the books of account – Once a liability to pay has accrued during the assessment year deduction can be allowed even though it had to be discharged at a future date – Even if the assessee disputes the liability to pay sales tax by filing an appeal, once the demand for payment has been received, the said amount can be claimed as a deduction. [ S. 28(1), 37(1) , 145, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S. 10(2)(xv)]

Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co Ltd v. CIT (1971) 82 ITR 363 (SC) (367)

S.36(1)(vii): Bad debt – Mere write off is sufficient for claiming deduction of bad debt– Held, Yes Subsequent to 01/04.1989, no requirement to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable.

T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397/190 Taxman 391/35 DTR 156/(2011) 220 Taxation 88 (SC)

S.36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital – Upfront interest paid – Interest on debentures – Allowable in the first year or to be spread over a period of five years – Method of accounting – Held, entire expenditure to be allowed in the year in which interest expenditure is incurred and paid – Held, treatment in the books of account not determinative –Matching concept not to be applied in such a case [S. 35D, 37(1), 43, 145]

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT (2015) 372 ITR 605/276 CTR 1/231 Taxman 5 (SC)/ 177 CTR 33 (SC)