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. 220 : Collection and recovery – Recovery of demand-Gross suppression and misstatement – Sought adjournment before CIT (A) without seeking modification of the Court’s order – Writ dismissed with cost of Rs 5 lakh. [ S.226(3) , Art , 226 ]

Indus Towers Ltd v ACIT ( Delhi ) (HC ) www.itatonline.org Editorial : The Supreme Court has stayed recovery of the demand SLP no 9011 /2020 dt 6-03 2020 Indus Towers Ltd v ACIT (SC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source – Credit for tax deducted – Deducutor has deducted the tax at source though failed to deposit the tax with the Govt dedcutee cannot be made to suffer- Credit for the tax deducted at source has to be allowed in the hands of the deductee irrespective of whether the same has been deposited by the deductor to the credit of the Central Government or not [ S.205 ]

Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd v ACIT ( Delhi) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 195 :Deduction at source – Non-resident – The payment by an Indian company to a foreign celebrity (Nicholas Cage) for an appearance by him in Dubai, UAE, in a product launch event for promoting the business of the assessee in India, is taxable as arising from a “business connection” and also under Article 23(1) of Inda-USA tax treaty – Liable to deduct tax at source – DTAA- India -USA [ S.5(2)(b) ,9(1), 115BBA,201, Art .23(1) ]

Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd v. ITO( 2020)115 taxmann.com 386 (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.org

S. 194E : Deduction at source – Non-resident – Sport person – Sports association – liable to deduct tax at source -The obligation to deduct tax is not affected by the DTAA. [ S. 9(1) ,115BBA ]

PILCOM v CIT ( 2020) 425 ITR 312 / 188 DTR 1/ 314 CTR 39/ 116 taxmann.com 394 / 271 Taxman 200( SC) www.itatonline.org Editorial : PILCOM v CIT (2011) 198 Taxman 555 /355 ITR 147/238 CTR 387 ( Cal) (HC ) is affirmed .

S. 147 : Reassessment – Share capital – At the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of S. 68 of the Act- Reopening is held to be justified -Sanction -Not required to provide elaborate reasons while approving the sanction -Succession – No requirement to issue two separate notices in name of amalgamated company as successor-in-interest of amalgamating company and to amalgamating company in its individual capacity, [ S.68, 148 ,151 170, Art , 226 ]

Experion Developers Pvt Ltd v ACIT v ACIT ( 2020) 422 ITR 355 / 115 taxmann.com 338 / 187 DTR 129 / 313 CTR 384 ( Delhi) (HC) www.itatonline .org ( 2020)/ Experion hospitality pvt ltd v ACIT v ACIT ( 2020) 422 ITR 355 / 115 taxmann.com 338 /187 DTR 129/ 313 CTR 384 ( Delhi) (HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 147: Reassessment -After expiry of four years -A mere bald assertion by the AO that the assessee has not disclosed fully and truly all the material facts is not sufficient. The AO has to give details as to which fact or the material was not disclosed by the assessee, leading to its income escaping assessment. Otherwise, the reopening is not valid [ S. 80IB (10)(f),148 , Art , 226 ]

Anand Developers, v ACIT ( 2020) (2020)425 ITR 261 /116 taxmnn.com 361 / 195 DTR 73( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- full & true disclosure of material facts, the assessee has the duty to disclose the primary facts, It is not required to disclose the secondary facts – If the AO intends to rely upon the second Proviso to s. 148 for the extended period of 16 years limitation, the same should be stated either in the notice or in the reasons in support of the notice- It cannot be done in the order rejecting the objections or at a later stage – Reassessment was quashed . [ S. 69A, 148 , 149 Art , 226 ]

New Delhi Television Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2020) 424 ITR 607 / 188 DTR 36 / 314 CTR 17/ 116 taxmann.com 151/ 271 Taxman 1 (SC)www.itatonline.org . Editorial : Order in New Delhi Television Ltd v Dy.CIT ( 2017) 84 taxmann.com 136/288 CTR 430 / (2018) 405 ITR 132/ ( Delhi) (HC ) is set aside .

S. 143(1A): Assessment -Additional tax – The object of S. 143(1A) is the prevention of evasion of tax- The burden of proving that the assessee has so attempted to evade tax is on the Revenue which may be discharged by establishing facts and circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn that the assessee has, in fact, attempted to evade tax lawfully payable by it- Levy of additional tax was quashed . [ S. 32, 143(1) 154 264 Art ,226 ]

Rajasthan State Electricity Board v Dy. CIT ( 2020) 424 ITR 704 187 DTR 457/ 313 CTR 745/ 115 taxmann.com 330 / 273 Taxman 1(SC) www.itatonline org Editorial: Order in Dy CIT v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (2008) 171 Taxman 331 / 299 ITR 253/ 217 CTR (Raj) (HC) is set aside .

S. 68 : Cash credits -Bogus purchases – Unregistered dealers – Penalty proceedings producing affidavits and statements of unregistered dealers and establishing their credentials Penalty set aside – Addition is held to be not justified . [ S.143(3) ]

Basir Ahmed Sisodiya v ITO ( 2020) 424 ITR 1 /188 DTR 20 /314 CTR 1 /116 taxmann.com 375/ 271 Taxman 247 ( SC) www.itatonline .org

S. 44DA : Non-residents – Royalties – Computation – Prevails over S. 44BB after the amendment w.e.f. 01.04.2011 DTAA -India -Australia . [ S.9(1)(vii) 44BB Art . 12 (3) ,Art .226 ]

Paradigm Geophysical Pvt Ltd. v CIT (IT) ( 2020) 115 taxmann.com 254 / 189 DTR 260/ 315 CTR 522( Delhi) (HC ) www.itatonline.org