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.143(3): Assessment – Balance sheet and profit and loss account certified by a chartered accountant in Form 3CB in accordance with rule 6G(1)(b) for obtaining loan from bank- AO is justified in making the additions on basis of window dressed financial statement to make it attractive for bankers to rely thereupon and all gloss and sheen removed thereafter when it was time to pay tax – The doctrine of pari delicto would apply and preclude the appellant herein from detracting from the figures contained in the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts certified on 18-7-2005 at any subsequent stage-Appellate Tribunal may only be faulted for not reporting the chartered accountants to the Institute of Chartered Accountants for having apparently abetted in the commission of a colossal act of misrepresentation which the appellant assessee undertook before his bankers for the purpose of obtaining credit facilities by indicating a financial position that was not warranted by the books of the assessee. [S.44AB , R. 6G]

Binod Kumar Agarwala v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 58/ 303 CTR 406/ 167 DTR 433 /( 2019) 411 ITR 493 (Cal)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – A company in business of clinical trial services is comparable to a company providing contract manufacture, contract research and development of drugs to its Associated Enterprises- Both comparables as well as assessee are situated in India, no adjustment of ALP on account of locational advantage is called for.

PCIT v. Watson Pharma (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 65 (Bom) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Sale of flats to related persons- Amendment brought on 1-4-2010 vide clause (f) to section 80IB(10) barring sale of more than one flat in a housing project to related persons, is prospective in nature [ S.80IB(10)(f) ]

CIT v. Elegant Estates. (2018)407 ITR 425/ 256 Taxman 433 (Mad) (HC)

S. 72A : Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-Maintenance of separate books of account is not mandatory .[ S.72A(4)(a)]

PCIT v. Adani Retail Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 68 (Guj)(HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Search- Return is filed by assessee within reasonable time permitted by issue of notice under S. 153A(1)(a), such return will be deemed to have been filed within time permitted under S. 139(1) for benefit under S. 139(3) to be availed of by assessee [ S.80, 139, 153A ]

Shrikant Mohta. v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 43 / 170 DTR 50/ 304 CTR 650/( 2019) 414 ITR 270 (Cal)(HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money -Search and seizure -Block assessment -Statement on oath- Merely on the basis that assessee in course of statement made under S. 132(4) had admitted that said jewellery belonged to him, could not be sustained ,when in the course of assessment proceedings established that jewellery seized from him actually belonged to his employer – There is no requirement in law that evidence in support of its case must be produced by assessee only at time when seizure has been made and not during assessment proceedings .[ S.132(4) , 158BC ]

CIT v. Rakesh Ramani. (2018) 256 Taxman 299/ 168 DTR 356 (Bom) (HC)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments -Search -Advance receipts- Real estate business-Amounts were received from bulk purchasers as per agreement and, that assessee had also filed cash flow statement and looking to modus operandi of business said sums were verifiable, thus, no addition was required to be made on this account

CIT v.Ranjeet Singh Yadav ( 2018) 257 Taxman 252 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v . Ranjeet Singh Yadav. (2018) 257 Taxman 29 (SC)

S. 54B : Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes -Sale deed for purchase and sale of land, found that assessee sold this land within two years from date of its purchase and not used land for agricultural purposes for a minimum period of two years before its sale -Not entitle exemption- Moreover, from expenses incurred, it could be proved that said land was never used for agricultural purposes after it was purchased by assessee as assessee was concentrating on its improvement rather than cultivation. [ S.45 ]

Gopal S. Pandit. v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 346/ 257 Taxman 50 / 172 DTR 23/( 2019) 307 CTR 112(Karn) (HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Agricultural produce – Paddy from farmers- No disallowance can be made [ R.6DD ]

CIT v Keerthi Agro Mills (P.) Ltd. ( 2017) 405 ITR 192/ 87 taxmann.com 31 ( Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;PCIT v. Keerthi Agro Mills (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits of Rs 20,000 -Inflated purchase expenditure by raising bogus claims – Only profit element embedded there in should be brought to tax and not the entire expenditure .[ S.37(1), 145 ]

PCIT v. Juned B. Memon (2018) 256 Taxman 380 (Guj) (HC)