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. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Derivative losses-Report of Investigation Directorate-Commodities transaction-Reassessment notice was held to be not justified. [S. 4, 143(3), 148, 153A]

ACIT v. G R D Commodities Ltd. (2021) 188 ITD 793 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Issue of notice of demand along with draft assessment order-Assessment order is not bad in law. [S. 92C]

Himalaya Drug Company v. ACIT (2021) 188 ITD 547 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Difference in amount of income shown between ITS/26AS viz-a-viz income accounted in books of account-Failure to reconcile the difference-Addition is held to be justified.

DCIT v. Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd. (2021) 188 ITD 834 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Civil construction business-Difference in 26AS and actual receipts-Matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer.

Ashoka Construction Company. v. ACIT (2021) 188 ITD 896 (All.)(Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Provision for diminution in value of investment-Written off in books of account-Addition cannot be made. [S. 115JB(2)(i)]

Dy. CIT v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (2021) 188 ITD 349 / 85 ITR 1 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 115BBE : Tax on specified income-set-off of any loss-Entitled to claim set-off of loss against income determined under till assessment year 2016-17. [S. 68 to 69D]

ACE Infracity Developers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 589 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Advertisement expenses-No agreement between AE-Adjustment was deleted-adjustment of royalty was deleted.

Himalaya Drug Company. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 201 (Bang.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Factors to be considered while accepting comparables-Web enabled customer care services, BPO services-Health care BPO services-Revenue filter-Held to be not comparable-Turnover of comparable company was 509 times-Not comparable-High Brand value-Not comparable.

Serco BPO (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 188 ITD 19 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Functional similarity-Business of manufacturing and distributing products of consumer electronics and home appliances category-Providing an online marketing platform for sale of electronic products of multiple brands-Designing and manufacturing of only mobile phones-Having brand owning and outsourcing its manufacturing activities to third party contractors could not be accepted as a valid comparable-Would not be accepted as a valid comparable.

Samsung India Electronics (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 188 ITD 425 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Export of customers electronic data-Comparable-Functionally different-Not acceptable as comparable-Interest receivable-No separate adjustment for interest on receivable was to be made.

Bechtel India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 188 ITD 460 / 86 ITR 544 (Delhi)(Trib.)