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. 115JB : Book profit – Banking – Insurance – Electricity company- Are not company bound by provisions of Companies Act – (Pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012)-Provision is not applicable to a banking company , insurance & electricity cos- The mechanism provided for computing book profit in terms of S. 115JB(2) is wholly unworkable for a banking company- When the machinery provision fails, the charging section also fails-Provision is not applicable -The anomaly was removed by the Finance Act, 2012-However, the amendments are neither declaratory nor clarificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are applicable prospectively.

CIT v. Union Bank of India ( 2019) 177 DTR 305/ 308 CTR 797/ 263 Taxman 685 (Bom)(HC).www.itatonline.orgEditorial: SLP is granted to the revenue PCIT v. Union Bank of India ( 2019) 418 ITR 9 (St) (SC)/ ( 2020) 269 Taxman 487 (SC)

S. 56 : Income from other sources – Fair Market Value-DCF method –Closely held company – The fact that the company is loss-making does not mean that shares cannot be allotted at premium. The DCF method is a recognised method though it is not an exact science & can never be done with arithmetic precision. The fact that future projections of various factors made by applying hindsight view cannot be matched with actual performance does not mean that the DCF method is not correct. [ S. 56(2)(viib), Rule 11UA. ]

India Today Online Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 176 ITD 459/ 178 DTR 17/ 199 TTJ 681(Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- Stamp valuation- AO is obliged to compute the capital gains by taking the valuation arrived at by the DVO in place of the actual consideration received by the assessee -The assessee is entitled to challenge the correctness of the DVO’s valuation before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal- The DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing. [ S.45 ]

Lovy Ranka v. DCIT ( 2019) 177 DTR 273/199 TTJ 670(Ahd)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to dispose of appeal on merits by passing a speaking order. [S. 250]

Swati Pawa (Ms.) v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 622 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay–Bonafide belief that as employees of State Government and were entitled to exemption of entire sum of unutilised leave encashment–Failure to deduct tax at source–Cannot be treated as assessee in default .[S.10(10AA(ii), 192, 201(1), 201(IA)]

Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. ITO(TDS) (2019) 70 ITR 352 / 175 ITD 504/ 198 TTJ 470/ 175 DTR 313/199 TTJ 377/ 177 DTR 256(Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Low gross profit–Books of account cannot be rejected without pointing out any defects CIT(A) cannot enhance and reject the books of account which was not the subject matter of assessment. [S. 251]

Zuberi Engineering Company V. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 261 / 175 ITD 557 / 197 TTJ 659 / 179 DTR 25(Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 133A : Power of survey -Sworn statement–Addition cannot be made only on the basis of statement of managing director recorded u/s. 131 during survey, without any corroborative evidence. [S. 131, 132(4) ,143(3), Evidence Act, 1878, S. 18]

ITO v. Toms Enterprises. (2019) 175 ITD 607/199 TTJ 758/ 180 DTR 235 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Advance received in earlier years-Addition cannot be made as cash credits.

James P. D’Silva. v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 533/199 TTJ 739 / 179 DTR 281(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 54B : Capital gains–Agricultural land-Land was used for agricultural purposes–Land classified as agricultural land Jowar crop was grown- Eligible exemption [S.2(14), 45]

Murtuza Shabbir Jamnagarwala v. ITO (2019) 175 ITD 494 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 48 : Capital gains–Computation-Foreign Institutional Investor (FII)-Sale of shares of Indian subsidiary-legal/professional fees paid to lawyers/accounting firms- Allowable as deduction. [S.45, 48(1)]

AIG Offshore Systems Services Inc. v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 647/ 197 TTJ 765 (Mum.)(Trib.)