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. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection – Royalty — Fees for technical services —Reimbursement of expenses- Held to be not taxable – DTAA-India – Singapore [ Art 5 (2) 12 ]

Dy. DIT v. Yum! Restaurants (Asia) Pte. Ltd. (2020) 81 ITR 440 / 192 DTR 372/ 206 TTJ 657( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Diversion of income by overriding title — Revenue sharing agreement- Holding company – Expenditure incurred towards services obtained from its holding company allowable as deduction .

ACIT v. Emaar MGF Construction P. Ltd. (2020)81 ITR 30 ( Delhi )(Trib)

S. 271C : Penalty – Failure to deduct at source – Non -resident – Short deduction of tax – levy of penalty is not justified when the assessee has deducted tax at source under S. 194IA instead of S 195 of the Act – Levy of penalty was deleted . [ S. 194IA ,195,201, 201(IA), 273B ]

Shri Jitendra Sharma v .JCIT ( Indore) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Bharat Sharma v .JCIT ( Indore) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Shatrughan Sharma v . JCIT ( Indore) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Client code modification- Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law. [ S. 68, 69C ,115BBE 143(1) 148 ]

Stratagem Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v . Dy. CIT ( Delhi ) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

Specific Relief Act 1963.
S.12 : Specific performance of part of Contract -The onus of proof lies on the party who makes an allegation- Time is not of essence to agreements for sale of immovable property, unless the agreement specifically and expressly incorporates the consequence of cancellation of the agreement, upon failure to comply with a term within the stipulated date. [ S. 10 11 (2) 14 , Limitation Act ,1963 , S 21(1) ]

B. Santoshamma v. D. Sarala ;MANU/SC/0698/2020 (SC) www.itatonline.org

Customs Act ,1962

S. 129A :Appeal -Appellate Tribunal – Limitation – The period of
limitation of three months commences from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated and not from the date of decision of the Committee of Commissioners. [ S.128A ,129 ,General Clauses Act, 1897 S.3 (35) Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 Art , 226 ]

Mangalnath Developers v. UOI ; MANU/MH/1274/2020 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Capital gains – Distribution of capital asset -Retirement – Amount credited to Partner’s capital account prior to retirement for goodwill whether taxable as capital gains with cost of acquisition as per sec. 55(2)(a) as NIL – Miscellaneous application of the revenue is dismissed [ S.45(4) 55(2)(a) ]

ITO v . Savitri Kadur (Smt) ( Bang) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment – Notice – Additional ground -AO can issue the notice u/s 143(2) only after filing of return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act – Prior issue of notice before such return is redundant therefore reassessment cancelled and quashed [ S.143(2) 148 151 292BB ]

Vikas Strips Ltd v . DCIT ( Delhi) (Trib) www.itatonlinbe.org

S.147: Reassessment – Information from investigation wing – Objections not disposed – Material not confronted with the reasons recorded – Reassessment notice was quashed .[ S.148 ]

Meena Gupta v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline .org Sheela Aggarwal v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Garima Agarwal, v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Narender Kumar v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Hanuman Prasad v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Gaurav Aggarwal v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org Shri Sourav Jindal v. ITO ( Delhi )(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains – Bogus capital gains from penny stocks- The AO has not discharged the onus of controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record any cogent material to sustain the addition as cash credits – Entitle to exemption- Addition as estimated commission income also deleted . [ S.10(38) 68 ]

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Ramesh Babulal Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Manju Ramesh Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Vishal Ramesh Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Rajesh Babulal Vardhan v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org