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. 10AA : Special economic zones-Trading covered by Services under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005-Entitle to deduction-Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 has overriding effect over provisions contained in any other Act. [Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, S. 2(z), 51]

Dy. CIT v. Dutyfree Distribution Services Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 32 (SN.) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Any order of stay shall stand vacated after the expiry of the period or periods mentioned in the Section only if the delay in disposing of the appeal is attributable to the assessee.[ Art . 14 ]

Dy.CIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (Now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt . Ltd.) (SC) www.itatonline.org

S.153D:ASSESSMENT – SEARCH -APPROVAL – APPROVAL HAS TO BE GIVEN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BY PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND – MECHANICAL APPROVAL IS HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW . [ S.132

SANJAY DUGGAL V. ACIT (DELHI)(TRIB), WWW.ITATONLINE.ORG

S. 17(2:PERQUISITE – ESOP BENEFITS GRANTED TO AN ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS RESIDENT AND IN CONSIDERATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED IN INDIA IS TAXABLE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT IN THE YEAR OF EXERCISE- DTAA -INDIA – UAE [ S.15 , ART .15 ]

V. S. Unnikrishnan v. ITO (IIT ) (2021) 86 ITR 11 (SN)/ 198 DTR 73/ 209 TTJ 681 (Mum)(Trib). www.itatonline.org

S. 153A : Assessment – Search-Assessment on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act) is not valid. The Assessee also had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness [ S. 132 , 153C ]

PCIT(C)-3 V. ANAND KUMAR JAIN (HUF) (DELHI)(HC), WWW.ITATONLINE.ORG

S. 271AAB : Penalty – Search -Undisclosed income –Levy of penalty not mandatory – Opportunity of hearing must be given – No assessment required for initiation of penalty- Since, the assessee has neither made any surrender of any undisclosed income during the search action nor the penalty has been initiated on the basis of undisclosed income found during such search action, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed- Levy of penalty deleted [ S. 132 ]

Shiv Bhagwan Gupta v. ACIT (Pat ) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

Constitution of India
Art .32 : Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this part – COVID -19 -Waiver of interest – Economic and fiscal regulatory measures are a field where Judges should encroach upon very warily as Judges are not experts in these matters. In assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the government. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review.

Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Association (Regd.) v. UOI and others (2021) 125 taxmann.com 336 (SC) / LL 2021 SC 175.www.itatonline.org

S. 90: Foreign tax Credit – Not allowed as refund – Deduction of taxes paid – Allowed in computation -DTAA- [S. 28(1), 37(1), 91; Art, 24]

Bank of India v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 201 DTR 1 / 210 TTJ 649 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

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 ]

Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence P .Ltd v. CIT ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC) www.itatonline .org / Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd v. DIT CIT ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC)/DIT v. Ericsson A.B . ( 2021) 432 ITR 471/199 DTR 361/ 319 CTR 497 / 125 taxmann.com 42 ( SC) www.itatonline .org Editorial: CIT v. Alcatel Lucent Canada ( 2015 ) 372 TR 476 ( Delhi) (HC) affirmed , CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ( 2012 ) 345 ITR 494 ( Karn) (HC) CIT v. Sunray Computers P.Ltd ( 2012 ) 348 ITR 196 ( Karn) (HC) , AAR in Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Pty Ltd , Inn re ( 2012 ) 343 ITR 1 (AAR ) reversed .

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]

Suo Motu Writ Petition (2021) AIR 2021 SC 1957 / 2 BomCR(Cri) 667 (SC) www.itatonline.org (SC)