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.92C: Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price — Exchange rate fluctuations —Taken part of operating margin [ S.92CA ]

Vitech Systems Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 58 (SN) (Hyd) (Trib)

S.92C: Transfer pricing — Arm’s Length Price — Delay in realisation of trade debts — Uniform policy -Associated enterprises and non- enterprises — Addition of notional interest is held to be not justified . [ S.92B ]

S. Vinodkumar Diamonds P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 81 ITR 46 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S.92C: Transfer pricing — Arm’s length price — Manning service fee —Addition is deleted .

Wilhelmsen Ship Management India Pvt. Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2020) 81 ITR 14 (SN) ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Huge related party transactions — Unreliable financials — Not Comparables [

Dy. CIT v. Cadence Design Systems (India) P. Ltd. (2020) 81 ITR 35 (SN) ( Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -A debt-free company — No interest paid to creditor or supplier nor interest earned from unrelated party- Adjustment of interest is held to be not warranted .

Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. v .ACIT (2020)81 ITR 94 (SN) ( Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Information enabled technology services -Comparable-Extraordinary events taking place in relevant period — Excluded from comparable – Interest receivables – No separate adjustment is required – Denial of exemption is not justified [ S. 10A , 92CA ]

American Express (I) P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT v (2020) 81 ITR 89 (SN) ( Delhi ) (Trib) .

S. 80IA :Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development-
Generation Of Electricity — Initial assessment year — Not required to notionally reduce losses arising from eligible business in earlier years already set off against other business – Losses arising in eligible business subsequent to earmarking of initial Assessment year to be governed by embargo placed in section 80IA(5) of the Act [ S.70 , 71 ,72 ,80IA(4),80IA(5) ]

Dy. CIT v. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. (2020) 81 ITR 5 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases –
Accommodation entries —Trading in gold jewellery – Enhancement by CIT (A) directing to add entire purchases was deleted – Estimate of 10% of bogus purchases Assessing Officer is affirmed . [ S. 132 ]

Bhagatram v. ACIT (2020) 81 ITR 59 (SN) (SMC) (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Silver and jewellery belongs to family members – Declared in the wealth tax return to be considered – Addition is held to be not valid [ S.69A , 132 ]

Pankaj Ladha v. Dy. CIT (2020) 81 ITR 42( SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S.68: Cash credits — Balances from earlier years – Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer .

Virendra Verma v. ITO (2020) 81 ITR 16 (SN) ( Delhi) (Trib)