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. 10(10C) : Public sector companies – Voluntary retirement scheme – Exemption available under section 10(10C) and section 89(1) of the Act – Alternate remedy not a bar from entertaining the writ petition – Single judge order of the High Court set aside [S. 10(10C)(viii),17(3), 89(1) ,264 , Art , 226 ]

V. Gopalan v. CCIT (2021) 431 ITR 76/ 318 CTR 706 / 197 DTR 433 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution – Exemption cannot be denied on ground that it does not have independent Memorandum of Association , bye-laws, etc unless it is proved that assessee does not meet parameters of section 10(23C) of the Act . [ S.10(23C)(vi) ]

CIT .v. Sengunthar Matriculation Higher Secondary School (2020) 121 taxmann.com 338 / (2021) 277 Taxman 252 (Mad) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution- Approval not to be denied in the absence of information regarding charging of profits

Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board v. CIT (2021) 318 CTR 229 / 125 taxmann.com 228 (Pat) (HC)

S. 10(10C): Public sector companies – Voluntary retirement scheme – Deduction under section 10(10C) and relief under section 89 – Simultaneously available. [ S.89(1), 264 ]

V. Gopalan v. CCIT (2021) 197 DTR 438 / 318 CTR 712 (Ker) (HC)

S. 9(1)vi): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty -– Non-resident -Receiving consideration – Sale of software product – Not royalty – Not liable to tax – DTAA – India-UK [ Art .3(2), 13(3) ]

CIT (IT ) v. Micro Focus Ltd. (2021) 431 ITR 136 /197 DTR 299/ 318 CTR 670 (Delhi) (HC)/Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue CIT v. Micro Focus Ltd (2022) 284 Taxman 444( SC)

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Proviso – Ratio decidendi

Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1/ 318 CTR 609 / 197 DTR 361 / 279 Taxman 75(SC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Section must be read liberally and reasonably and in case of ambiguity, in favour of the assessee – Once a co-operative society provides credit facilities to its members, the fact that it also provides credit facilities to non-members does not disentitle it from availing of the deduction. Section does not require that the society has to give agricultural credit only –-Proviso which excludes co-operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in banking business and not primary agricultural credit societies- Interpretation – Proviso cannot be used to cut down language of main enactment- Precedent — Ratio decidendi alone binding and not what may seem logically to follow from it. [ S. 2(19), 80P(2)(a), 80P(4), Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969, Ss. 2(F), (Oaa), (Ob), (Oc), 3, 4, 7, 8 , Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1969, R. 15. ]

Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1/ 318 CTR 609 / 197 DTR 361 (SC) Editorial : Decision in PCIT v. Poonjar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd [2019] 414 ITR 67 (Ker) (HC) reversed.• SLP is granted to the assessee Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 12 (St) (SC)/ (2020) 269 Taxman 387 (SC) • SLP is granted to the assessee Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 12 (St) (SC)/ (2020) 269 Taxman 387 (SC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Appeal with drawn as dismissed – Charitable Trust – Collection of capitalisation fee for admission of students [ S. 2 (15) 11, 12 , 13, 261 ]

Karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. CIT (2021 ) 431 ITR 50/ 319 CTR 651 /199 DTR 305 / 278 Taxman 363(SC)

S.56 : Income from other sources – Excess over Fair market Value of Shares – Deemed income – Not applicable – shares issued under a scheme of Amalgamation.[ S.56 (2)(viib) ]

DCIT v. Ozone India Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 476/ 211 TTJ 477/ 203 DTR 161/(2022) 94 ITR 609 (Ahd) (Trib)(Ahd )(Trib ) www.itatonline .org

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Claim supported by various decisions and documentary evidence-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Kumudini v. Gavit (Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 30 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)