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. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Non-resident–Foreign assignment allowance–Revision is held to be bad in law-AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the view permissible in law. [S. 5(2), 9(ii)]

Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay v. CIT(2020) 185 DTR 89/ 203 TTJ 26 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Procedure–Additional evidence-Remand–Evidence collected during appellate proceedings–Opportunity was not given to the AO-Matter set aside to the file of AO. [S. 246A, R. 46A]

ACIT v. Par Excellence Leasing & Financial Services (P) Ltd. (2020) 186 DTR 129 / 203 TTJ 743 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Within four years-Change of opinion-Capital gains on sale of agricultural land-No failure to disclose material facts-Approval granted was without application of mind – Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 2(IA), 10(1), 115JB, 148, 151]

Krish Homes (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 186 DTR 177 / 78 ITR 101 / 203 TTJ 909 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-Failure to deduct tax at source–Merely on the doubt about applicability of tax deducted at source, reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 40(a)(ia), 148]

Eagle Burgmann India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185DTR 401 / 203 TTJ 477 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 124 : Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Jurisdiction of AO cannot be called in question by assessee after expiry of one month from date of which he was served with notice u/s. 142(1) or after completion of assessment, which was to be earlier. [S. 142(1)]

Thiagarajar Mills (P) Ltd. v. JCIT (2020) 185 DTR 121 / 203 TTJ 367 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer–Additional grounds-Jurisdiction-Joint Commissioner–Joint Commissioner of Income-tax-Addl. CIT can act TPO. [S. 2(28C), 92CA(7), 116(cc), 116cca)]

Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–No transfer pricing adjustment can be made on transactions with the non-AEs– Matter remanded.

Eaton Industrial Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 1 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–LIBOR instead of LIBOR + credit spread on account of the risk profile of the borrower.

Dy. CIT v. JSW Energy Ltd. (2020) 180 DTR 598 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Loan to AE-Interest should be charged at LIBOR+200 bps.

Bombay Rayon Holdings Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 186 DTR 19 / 203 TTJ 568 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Comparable-Directed the TPO to compute margins by taking foreign exchange fluctuations gains/loss as part of operating income both in the case of the assessee and comparable companies.

Yokogawa IA Technologies India P. Ltd v.Dy.CIT(2020) 180 ITD 621 (Bang.)(Trib.)