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. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Specified domestic transactions– When clause (i) of section 92BA has been omitted by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01-04-2017, without any saving clause of General Clauses Act, it would be treated as said clause never existed in Statute Book-Revision is held to be bad in law. [S. 92BA]

Raipur Steel Casting India (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 184 ITD 86 / 208 TTJ 450 (Kol.)(Trib)/Srinath Ji Furnishing ( P) Ltd v.PCIT (2020) 184 ITD 86 /208 TTJ 450 (Kol.) (Trib)

S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Reference to Special Bench-Interest-Paid by subsidiary-Matter referred to Larger Bench to examine connotations of expression ‘paid’ appearing in article 11 as in various decisions of Tribunal, there was no discussion about connotations of expression ‘paid’ and these decisions simply proceed on basis that since expression ‘paid’ is used in article 11(1) of India Cyprus tax treaty, taxability of interest can only be on cash basis-DTAA-India-Cyprus. [Art. 11(1)]

Ampacet Cyprus Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 184 ITD 743 / 195 DTR 289 / 208 TTJ 653 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Paid half of demand-Garnishee proceedings-Stay was granted. [S. 220, 226(3)]

Pandhes Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 868 / 189 DTR 340 / 205 TTJ 478 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Delay of 92 days-Averments made in the application for condonation of delay was not supported by any affidavit either of assessee or Chartered Accountant-Appeal was dismissed.

Sandeep Kumar Jain v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 276 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner(Appeals)-Duties-Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Penalty order confirmed by the CIT(A) merely on ground that written submissions filed against said order did not bear signature of assessee-Order was set aside to the file of CIT(A). [S. 271AAA]

Keshavlal Devkaranbhai Patel. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 131 (Rajkot)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-order pertaining period prior to 1-6-2015-Matter remanded to the file of CIT(A). [S. 200A, 250]

3S Technologies & Automation (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 895 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Distribution of film-Minimum Guarantee Royalty (MGR)-Copy right-Royalty-Right of exhibition of cinematographic films-Not copy rights hence do not fall under term Royalty-Not liable to tax deduction at source-No disallowance can be made. [S. 40(a)(ia)]

ITO v. Yashovardhan Tyagi (2020) 184 ITD 461 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction at source-Commission or brokerage-Discount on pre-paid sim cards-Not required to deduct tax at source.

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 204 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Development of Special Economic Zone-Lease rent income offered under the head income from house property. [S. 22, 80IAB]

Cessna Garden Developers (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 184 ITD 814 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Survey-Surrender of income-Undisclosed investment in stock-Provision of section 115BBE was not invoked in the original assessment proceedings-Charge of maximum rate in rectification proceedings is held to be not valid. [S. 69, 143(3) 115BBE]

ACIT v. Sudesh Kumar Gupta (2020) 184 ITD 651 / 193 DTR 265 / 206 TTJ 1019 (Jaipur)(Trib.)