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. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment–Special audit–Complexity in accounts–Order to Special audit is held to be valid-Juristic person like a company cannot file a writ petition. [Art. 226]

Cama Hotels Ltd. v. Samir Vakil for his successor Dy. CIT (OSD) (2019) 418 ITR 109 / 182 DTR 129/ 311 CTR 537(Guj.)(HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Condition that completion certificate must be obtained within four years from local authority -Amendment is not retrospective —Not applicable prior to 1-4-2005 – Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 147, 148]

PCIT v. Sahara States, Gorakhpur. (2019) 418 ITR 168 / 310 CTR 457/181 DTR 265 / 267 Taxman 130 (All.)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Loan–Accommodation entries-Creditor admitting loan was not genuine–Retraction of admission after more than two years–No evidence was produced to prove genuineness of loan-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-No substantial question of law. [S. 131, 133A, 260A]

Swastik Realtors v. ACIT (2019) 418 ITR 1/ 267 Taxman 27 / 311 CTR 946/ ( 2020) 186 DTR 186(Bom.) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Contractors-Turnover did not exceed monetary limit prescribed under the Act for tax audit – Not liable to deduct tax at source-Disallowance cannot be made for failure to deduct tax at source. [S. 44AB, 194C]

PCIT v. Vijay S. Poojari (2019) 109 taxmann.com 212 / 266 Taxman 183 (Bom) (HC) Editorial : SLP of the revenue is dismissed; PCIT v. Vijay S. Poojari. (2019) 266 Taxman 182 (SC)

S. 10A : Free trade zone-Disallowance of expenses-Enhanced profit due to statutory disallowances–Entitle to deduction. [S.40(a)(ia)]

PCIT v. BMC Software India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 109 taxmann.com 277 / 266 Taxman 179 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. BMC Software India (P.) Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 178 (SC)

S. 10(23EA) : Investor Protection Fund–Trust which is qualified under Sections 11 to 13 could also claim exemption–Rejection of claim is held to be not justified. [S. 11, 12, 13]

National Stock Exchange Investor Protection Fund Trust. (2019) 109 taxmann.com 275 / 266 Taxman 181 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; National Stock Exchange Investor Protection Fund Trust. (2019) 266 Taxman 180 (SC)/ 416 ITR 129 (St.)(SC)

S. 43B : Deductions on actual payment – Provision for leave encashment- Not allowable as deduction .[ S.43B(f) ]

Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 410 ITR 280/ 261 Taxman 521 / 177 DTR 48/ 308 CTR 484 (Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed , Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. CIT ( 2019) 266 Taxman 185 (SC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – AO cannot blow hot & cold by disallowing the purchases from a party as bogus while treating sales to same party as genuine-Entire purchases cannot be disallowed – Percentage of addition to gross profit is held to be justified.

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2019) 76 ITR 504 (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share capital – Share premium- Additional grounds -Photocopies of blank share transfer forms, blank signed receipts etc necessary for transfer of shares found with assessee are not admissible as evidence u/s 61 of Evidence Act and not incriminating in nature- All investors are assessed & have filed confirmations with trail of funds- AO did not make further inquiry into the documentary evidences or verify the trail of source of funds-Addition is held to be not justified . [ S.132(4) ,145A, 153A Evidence Act ,S.61 ].

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 76 ITR 504 (Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 56 : Income from other sources –Foreign company –DCF Method- Receipt of property less than aggregate fair value of the property – S. 56(2)(viia) cannot apply to a foreign company as Rule 11U(b)(ii) (prior to 01.04.2019) which defines “balance sheet‟ was not applicable to a foreign company-If the computation provisions cannot apply, the charging section cannot apply. The amendment to Rule 11U with effect from 1.4.19 is prospective in nature –Rejection of DCF method is held to be not proper. [ S.56(2) (viia), Rule 11UA(b) (ii) ]

Keva Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO ( 2020) 186 DTR 134 / 203 TTJ 672(Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org