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. 271G : Penalty – Documents – International transaction – Transfer pricing –Failure to maintain documents – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified . [92C(1), 92CA, 92D, 92D(1)]

Dy .CIT v. Arjav Diamond India (P) Ltd ( 2020) 187 DTR 59/ 203 TTJ 771 ( Mum)( Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Failure to deduct tax at source – Transfer pricing adjustments- Explanation 7- Deletion of penalty is held to be justified . [ S.92C ]

ITO v. Tianjin Tianshi India P. Ltd. (2020) 189 DTR 26 / 205 TTJ 107 (Delhi)(Trib.) ITO v. Tianjin Tianshi India P. Ltd. (2020) 189 DTR 26 / 205 TTJ 107 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable orders –Dismissal of appeal – CIT (A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits . [ S.234E, 250 ]

Total Transport Systems Ltd v. ITO ( 2020) 187 DTR 53/ 203 TTJ 385 (Bang )(Trib)

S. 206C : Collection at source – Trading – Alcoholic liquor – Forest produce – Scrap – Levy of interest – Merely because the form No 27 filed by the assessee was incomplete levy of interest is not justified . [ S.201(IA , 206 (7) )

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd v. ACIT ( 2020) 187 DTR 217 /207 TTJ 764 ( Jodhpur ) ( Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Review is not possible – Ascertain the correct and true nature of expenses – Rectification is held to be bad in law [ S. 37 (1) , 143 ( 3) ]

Dy. CIT v. Haryana Ware housing Corporation (2020) 188 DTR 360 / 204 TTJ 265 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 153D : Assessment – Search – Approval -Information through RTI – Approval not obtained – Order is bad in law [ S.143(3), 153A ]

Ajay Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2020) 187 DTR 132 / 204 TTJ 281 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – Valid service of notice is not mere procedural requirement , it is a condition precedent to validity of any assessment or reassessment – If notice issued is shown as invalid , subsequent proceedings shall be illegal – Service by affixture – Reassessment was quashed as the service of notice was not proper as per the law as per Order V, Rule 12, Rule 17, rule 19, Rule 20(1) and Order III, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 . [ S. 147, 149, 282 ]

K.P. Cold Storage v .ITO ( 2019 ) 201 TTJ 649/ ( 2020) 189 DTR 385 (Agra)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Cash credits – Information from investigation wing – Merely on the basis of information from investigation wing without any further verification reassessment is bad in law [ S.68, 148 ]

Arora / Sapra S.N. v. ITO (2020) 187 DTR 121 / 204 TTJ 137 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Draft order was not signed and stamped by the Assessing Officer- Order is not invalid [ S. 143 ( 3) , 292B]

Reuters Transaction Services Ltd v. Dy . CIT ( 2020) 187 DTR 268/ 204 TTJ 624 ( Mum) ( Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Time barred objections –DRP rejected the application as time barred – Assessing Officer is required to complete the assessment with one month from end of month in which period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires— Assessment order is barred by limitation [ S.92CA, 144C (2) , 144C(3) 144C (13) ]

TDK Electronics ag (Formerly known as EPCOS AG) v. ACIT (2020) 188 DTR 328 / 204 TTJ 273 (Pune) (Trib)