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. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- providing basic services of domain name registration charging annual subscription fees and connectivity charges —Incidental to main objects of assessee —Entitled to exemption [ S.2(15) 10(23C)(IV) , 260A ,Companies Act, 1956, S.25 ]

CIT ( E ) v. National Internet Exchange of India. (2019) 417 ITR 436 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue , CIT ( E ) v. National Internet Exchange of India. (2019) 412 ITR 41 (St)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Application of income- Adjustment of excess expenditure of earlier years against income of current year amounts to application of income-Entitle to exemption .[ S.2(15) 11(1) (a) ]

CIT ( E) v. Agastya International Foundation. (2019) 417 ITR 539 (Karn) (HC)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Turnover – Unrealised sale proceeds cannot be included in total turnover and excluded from export turnover — Expenditure incurred in foreign currency for export of software is includible in export turnover .

Polaris Consulting and services Ltd v. DCIT (2019) 417 ITR 441 / ( 2020) 113 taxmann.com 325 (Mad) (HC)

West Bengal Sales Tax Act , 1994 -Service tax – Finance Act 1994 .
S.2(30): Club-Mutuality -A club registered as a ‘company’ u/s 25 of Companies Act is not like other companies as it has no shareholders, no dividends declared, and no distribution of profits takes place-.Such clubs cannot be treated as separate in law from their members- when a club supplies goods to its members, there is no “sale” and sales-tax cannot be levied- From 2005 onwards, the Finance Act of 1994 does not purport to levy service tax on members’ clubs in the incorporated form. [S. 2(5), 2(10) 2(30), Constitution of India , Art . 366 (29-A), 367 , , Contract Act , 1872, S. 2(d) , Companies Act ,1956 , S. 25(1)(b) , Income -tax , 1961 ,S. 2(24)(vii) , 2(31),44, 45 , Indian Contract Act 1872 , S .2(d) , General Clauses Act , 3 (42) , Finance Act , 1994 , S. 65 (105) (zze ), 65B (37), 66B ,66D 68 ]

State of West Bengal v. Calcutta Club Ltd ( 2019) 182 DTR 409 /311 CTR 121/ 2019 (29 ) G.S.T.L 545 (SC) .www.itatonline.org CC Central Excise and Service v. Ranchi Club Ltd ( 2019) 182 DTR 409 /311 CTR 121/ 2019 (29 ) G.S.T.L 545 (SC) .www.ittonline.org

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S.3: Charge of tax – It is not correct to say that while exercising powers under Sections 85 and 86 of the Black Money Act, the Central Government has made the said Act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015. The penal provisions u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of S. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon [ S.2(9) ( d) , 50, 51 , 59 , 72, 85 ,86 ]

UOI v. Gautam Khaitan ( 2019) 311 CTR 249/ 183 CTR 1/( 2020) 420 ITR 140 (SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial: Decision of Delhi High Court is reversed , Gautam Khaitan v .UOI ( 2019) 308 CTR 676/ 178 DTR 100 / 415 ITR 99( Delhi) (HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Non grant of refund – Not an appellable order – Subject to revision- Alternative remedy is available- Writ is not maintainable [ S. 197 ,246A, Art .226 ]

Aditya Marine Ltd v. DCIT ( 2019) 183 DTR 89/ 311 CTR 695 (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Recovery of tax – Substantial payment of tax in dispute was paid – Stay was granted. [ S.220(6) , 245 ]

Voivo Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bang)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay. [ S.254(1)

PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd.( 2019) 184 DTR 385/( 2020) 312 CTR 373 (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases – Conditions – Pendency of the assessment – An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee-Rejection of petition is held to be not valid . [ S. 245A (b) , 245(C) (1) , 245D(1) ]

M3M India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ITSC ( 2019) 419 ITR 1/311 CTR 941 / 184 DTR 93/ (2020) 269 Taxman 425 (P &H) (HC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial: SLP dismissed on ground of delay of 137 days was not explained in preferring petition, PCIT (Cent.) v. M3M India Holdings (P) Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 90/ 114 CCH 37 (SC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Reassessment – After conclusion of reassessment proceedings addition cannot be made by taking aid of explanation 3 to S. 147 . [ S.147 , 148 ]

JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2019) 184 DTR 377 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org