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 – Assessee deemed in default -Waiver of interest – Principal amount of tax was not paid for over fourteen years – Rejection of waiver application for interest is held to be valid .[ S. 132,158BC, 220(2) ]

Video Master v. CIT(2018) 165 DTR 47 /303 CTR 117/ 413 ITR 153(Bom) (HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate -Charitable trust – AO was directed to dispose the application expeditiously . [ S.11,12AA ]

South Indian Education Society v DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 278 (Bom) (HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment – Search- Addition was made on the basis of seized material – Block assessment cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the authorisation was not in the name of the assessee but the premises of the assesee – Neither AO nor Tribunal in appeal could examine warrant of authorization for purpose of examining whether there existed reasons to believe on material before competent authority to order search u/s 132(1) . Assessee has not disputed the panchanama prepared by the search team in the name of assessee- Block assessment is held to be valid . In the present case search and seizure was actually made on the premises on the premises of assessee and documents and material collected therefrom also pertain to it , therefore S.158BD is not attracted . [ S.132, 158BD ]

CIT v. Verma Roadways . (2018) 165 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 163 (All) (HC)

S. 153A: Assessment – Search-Documents seized revealed total expenditure that assessee incurred in respect of both his children was not disclosed in the return of income , addition confirmed by the Tribunal is up held . As both brothers have signed the panchnama there was no necessity of issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act . [ S.132 ]

Vinod Kumar Gupta v. DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 409/ 305 CTR 288 (Delhi) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment— After the expiry of four years- Failure to disclose material facts—Failure to deduct tax at source –Discount on sales – Revenue has not able to show that the assessee has claimed discount on sales as expenditure ,therefore Stay was granted in terms of prayer (d) of the petition . Court also observed that the AO is free to examine all issues in terms of Explanation III to S. 147 of the Act. [ S.148 ]

Novartis India Ltd. v CIT (2018) 165 DTR 198 (Bom) (HC)

S. 139 : Return of income – Delay of 37 days -Chane of auditor -CBDT was directed to condone the delay of 39 days in filling of return . [ S. 119(2)(b) ]

Regen Powertech Private Ltd. v. CBDT (2018) 165 DTR 187 / 255 Taxman 100 / 303 CTR 727 /( 2019) 410 ITR 483(Mad) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Comparability Parameters and Application of Filters- Inappropriate filters had been used by asssessee which would lead to an incorrect choice of comparables. DRP passed order excluding three companies from final set of comparables drawn by TPO-Tribunal partly allowed assessee’s appeal, however, upheld inclusion of Thirdware Solutions Limited and exclusion of CG Vak Soft-ware & Exports Ltd. and Quintegra Solutions Ltd. as comparables for benchmarking international transaction under software development services segment- Order of Tribunal is up held .

Steria India Ltd v. DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 89 / 302 CTR 153 / 255 Taxman 110 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Cancellation of registration on basis of violation of S.13(1)(c ) of the Act is held to be not valid [ S.11, 13(1)( c) ]

CIT v. Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan (2018) 165 DTR 101 / 302 CTR 304 (Bom) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Withdrawal of approval- Collection of capitalisation fee- Illegal activities -Rs 52 crores was collected as anonymous donations – Sham or bogus trusts cannot be held to be entitle to exemption . [ S.10(23C) (vi) ]

Navodya Education Trust v UOI ( 2018)405 ITR 30 / 253 Taxman 412/ 302 CTR 381 / 165 DTR 16 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: Decision of single judge is reversed Navodya Education Trust v. UOI ( 2019) 417 ITR 157 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Limitation – If the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law , writ is maintainable- Notice issued by the PCIT is quashed [ Art, 226 ]

Indira Industries v. PCIT ( 2018) 169 DTR 171 / 305 CTR 314 (Mad)(HC), www.itatonline.org