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. 263 : Commissioner–Revision of orders prejudicial to the revenue–Commissioner required to decide the issue before determining the assessment order as erroneous and unsustainable in law–Order of Commissioner set aside. [S. 143(3)]

Adishwar K. Jain v. CIT (2019) 201 TTJ 77 / 52 CCH 606 / 181 DTR 29 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amalgamation of Companies-Department Knowing About Dissolution of assessee-PCIT to take notice of amalgamation and substitute successor while passing revision Order after hearing to amalgamated company-Commissioner passing revision order against non-existent company-Order ab initio void.

Durja Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019)76 ITR 402 (Kol.)(Trib.) Gyan Mandir Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.)(Trib.) Paramtma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.) (Trib.) Aditi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.)(Trib.) Light House Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Payments liable to deduction of tax at source-Assessee crediting interest to unsecured loan accounts of parties before close of year-Decision of high court that tax not required to be deducted in case where assessee paid interest during year-AO rightly not making disallowance-Order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interests of revenue-Revision order passed by Commissioner invalid. [S. 40(a)(ia)]

Ravindra Khemka v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 330 (Lucknow)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– CIT to himself conduct enquiries-AO has carried out detailed inquiry and verification of the documents and is satisfied with the net profit shown by the eligible unit as well as the nature of expenses incurred by eligible and non eligible units, then without there being found any discrepancy or defect, such assessment order cannot be set aside. [S. 80IC]

Bagrrys India Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 179 DTR 114 / 199 TTJ 512 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 244A : Refund–Interest on refunds-Amount refundable to assessee on account of interest subsidy being capital in nature-CIT(A)’s denial for grant of such interest-without giving opportunity of hearing-Matter remanded.

Vardhman Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 183 DTR 477 / 202 TTJ 750 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Time limit for passing order–Amendment by Finance Act, 2014 is only procedural–Order has been passed within seven years-Order within limitation. [S. 2(22)(e), 194, 201(3)]

ITO (TDS) v. Shri Rang Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. (2019) 75 ITR 104 / (2020) 180 ITD 680 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 199 : Deduction at source–Credit to tax deducted–Point in time –Credit in the year in which income is assessable-TDS credit is allowed. [R. 37BA]

Mahesh Software Systems P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019)75 ITR 100/ 112 Taxmann.com 354 (2020) 181 ITD 524 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Payment for purchase of software was in the nature of business income, in the absence of PE, tax was not required to be deducted on such payments. [S. 37, 92]

Organon (India) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2019) 179 DTR 1 / 200 TTJ 635 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Bank guarantee commission–No principal-agent relationship–Not liable deduct tax at source. [s. 2(28A) and 194A(3)(iii)]

Navnirman Highway Project Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 75 ITR 67 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Addition made towards undisclosed income on the basis of statement made after the period of search-having no nexus with the incriminating material found during search–not sustainable. [S. 132(4)]

Ultimate Builders v. ACIT (2019) 183 DTR 179 / 202 TTJ 91 / 74 ITR 566 (Indore)(Trib.)