S. 195 :Deduction at source – Non-resident – Other sums – Amount received for supply of software – Not liable to deduct tax at source
DTAA -India [ Art , 12 , 9 (1)(vi), Art, 12 ]
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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 The Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881
S.138 :Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency , etc , of funds in the account – Courts are inundated with complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The cases are not being decided within a reasonable period and remain pending for a number of years. This gargantuan pendency of complaints filed under s. 138 of the Act has had an adverse effect in disposal of other criminal cases. Concerned with the large number of cases pending at various levels, a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has examined the reasons for the delay in disposal of the cases. The Bench has issued important directions which will expedite the hearing and disposal of the cases[ S. 140, 141, 142]
The Limitation Act , 1963
S.18 : Effect of acknowledgement in writing. – The principle of S. 9 of the Limitation Act, namely, that when time begins to run, it cannot be halted, except by a process known to law, has to be strictly adhered to. S. 18 of the Limitation Act, which extends the period of limitation depending upon an acknowledgement of debt made in writing and signed by the corporate debtor, is also applicable to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code since S. 238A uses the expression “as far as may be” governing the applicability of the Limitation Act. An entry made in the books of accounts, including the balance sheet, can amount to an acknowledgement of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The notes annexed to or forming part of the balance sheet, or the auditor’s report, must be read along with the balance sheet. [S.9, 14, Companies Act, 2013 , S. 2(40), 92, 128, 129, 134, 137, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , S,238A ]
Asset reconstruction company (India) limited v. Bishal Jaiswal & Anr . AIR 2021SC5249 / 6SCC366 / 166 SCL82 (SC) www.itatonline.org (SC)S. 271AAA : Penalty – Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007 – Undisclosed income and specifies manner in which such income derived- Failure of the raiding party to elicit a response from assessee regarding manner of deriving income- Deletion of penalty by the Tribunal is held to be valid . [ S.132 (4) , 271AAA(2) ]
CIT v. Patdi Commercial and Investment Ltd. (2020) 420 ITR 308 / 187 DTR 35 (Guj) (HC)S. 92CA :Reference to transfer pricing officer -International Transactions — Transactions with Associated Enterprises —Arm’s Length Price — Management fees- Order of Tribunal is affirmed .[ S.92C, 260A ]
CIT v. Tudor India P. Ltd. (2020) 420 ITR 399/ 189 DTR 329/ 314 CTR 787 (Guj) (HC)S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Capital gains- Sale of property – Stamp valuation-Legal fiction cannot be invoked to make addition – Merely on the basis of stamp valuation addition cannot be made .[ S.45 , 50C , 69B ,263 . ]
Gayatri Enterprise. v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 15 / 192 DTR 192/ 271 Taxman 276 (Guj) (HC)The Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
S.4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished -Settlement of Disputes — The Designated Authority cannot reject the declaration filed under section 4(1) of the DTVSV Act, when the declarant’s case does not fall under section 4(6) and in any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 9 of the said Act. [S. 4(1), 4(6) ,9, ITAct , S. 264 , Art , 226 ]
Sadruddin Tejani v. ITO ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 474 / 320 CTR 121 / 200 DTR 353 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of professional fees and interest on borrowed capital-Levy of concealment penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 36(1)(iii), 37 (1)]
Quippo Telecom Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 185 ITD 275 / (2021) 198 DTR 202 / 2009 TTJ 828 (Delhi)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revised return-Substitution of sub-section (5) of section 139 vide Finance Act, 2016 which came into force from 1-4-2017 is prospective in nature-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 139(4), 139 (5)]
Avadhut Ban (HUF) v. PCIT (2020) 185 ITD 508 / (2021) 198 DTR 180 / 209 TTJ 1044 (Pune)(Trib.)S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Additional evidence-Cash credits-No opportunity was given to the AO-Rule 46A is violated. [S. 68, R.46A]
ACIT v. Kandoi Transport Ltd. (2020) 185 ITD 358 (Cuttack) (Trib.)