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S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration-Company registered under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013-Withdrawn application under wrong advice-CIT(E) is justified in rejecting request for restoration of application under section 12AB of the Act [S.12A, 12AB, Companies Act, 2013, S. 8]

Dharohar Charitable Foundation v. CIT(E) (2024) 163 taxmann.com 173 / 228 TTJ 13(UO) (Jodhpur) (Trib)

S. 12AB : Procedure for fresh registration-Cancellation of registration-Search and seizure-Originally assessed at Chandigarh-Centralised at Gurgaon-Case-Cancellation of registration by virtue of Jurisdiction under section 127 is not valid-Order of cancellation passed by Principal CIT, Gurgaon, is without jurisdiction in the context of territorial powers apart from the fact that it is not in accordance with law-Order is quashed. [S.2(7A), 12AA,12AB(4), 127(2), 132(1)]

Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha v. PCIT (2024) 228 TTJ 137 / 236 DTR 33 / 38 NYPTTJ 121 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Cancellation of registration-Trust contains a covenant that enables the settlor to utilize the premises for herself or her family-Cancellation of registration is set aside. [S. 11(5), 12A, 12AA(3), 13 (3)]

Mr. & Mrs. S.M. Batha Education Trust v. CIT (2024) 164 taxmann.com 266/ 228 TTJ 20 (UO) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 10(23D) : Mutual Fund-Exemption-Approved by Government and Reserve Bank of India-Eligible for exemption-Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. [UTI India Fund Unit Scheme, 1986, Unit Trust of India Act, 1963]

DCIT (E) v. UTI India Fund Unit Scheme 1986 (2024) 228 TTJ 607 / 237 DTR 44 / 38 NYPTTJ 126 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Supply of telecommunication hardware with software-Receipt is not taxable as royalty-Not liable to pay interest u/s. 234B-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 90, 195, 234B, Art. 7, 12]

DIT v. Ut Starcom Inc. (2023) 155 taxmann.com 117 /37 NYPTTJ 923 (2024) 228 TTJ 479 / 236 DTR 339 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Subscription received by assessee from members towards holidays membership schemes—Entries in the books of account is not conclusive-Collective investment schemes(CIS)-Advances for sales-Deposits-The deposits received from the members cannot be treated as revenue receipt-Capital receipt.[S.40(a)(ia), 145, 194A, 195]

Royal Twinkle Star Club (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 374 / 37 NYPTTJ 334 / (2024) 228 TTJ 991 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Business income-Compensation-Other payments-Income chargeable to tax-Compensation for termination (nonrenewal) of professional contract-Profession-Retrenchment-Freelance journalist-Compensation being capital receipt is not taxable. [S. 4, 28(ii)(e), 32(1)(iv), 56(2)(xi), Industrial Relations Code, 2020, S. 2(ZA)]

Padma Rao (Ms.) v. CIT (2024) 159 taxmann.com 30 /228 TTJ 109 / 235 DTR 193 / 38 NYPTTJ 136 (Delhi) (Trib)

S.271D: Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Book adjustment entries-No violation of section. 269SS-Penalty is deleted. [S. 269SS]

Nilons Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2023) 37 NYPTTJ 1363 (2024) 227 TTJ 757 / 234 DTR 9 / 161 taxmann.com 566 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reassessment-Lack of proper enquiry-Issues not subject-matter of reassessment-Issue which is not subject matter of reassessment, Commissioner cannot direct the Assessing Officer to carry out the enquiry as suggested by the Commissioner. [S. 37(1), 40A(2)(vi), 40A(2)(b), 147, 148]

Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 157 taxmann.com 195 / 37 NYPTTJ 1306 /(2024) 227 TTJ 870 / 239 DTR 247 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Cross objection-Performance guarantee-Deposit-Jurisdictional issue-Ground raised orally-Validity of reassessment-Respondent can raise the issue orally-CIT(A) deleted the addition on merits-Revenue appeal-The Respondent can raise the grounds of validity of reassessment-Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, does not propose raising the objection in writing-The respondent is well within his right to raise the ground orally-Reassessment is quashed on change of opinion. [S. 37, 69, 147, 148, ITAT R.1963, 27]

ITO v. Bishambhar Dayal Agrawal (2024) 227 TTJ 38 (UO)/ 161 taxmann.com 1063 (Raipur) (Trib)