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. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – “advancement of objects of general public utility”- Income from organizing of Davis Cup up to the limit prescribed as per the second proviso to section 2(15), which for the assessment year under consideration is Rs. 25 lacs, will be treated as income from ‘charitable purposes’ and the assessee will be entitled to claim the exemption u/s 11 of the Act up to that extent in respect of the said income along with other income, if any, from the non-business activity of the assessee. However, the income over and above amount for Rs. 25 lacs from the business activity i.e. from the exploitation of its right to hold Davis Cup will be treated as ‘business income’ of the assessee and will be liable to include in its total income. The assessing officer, therefore, is directed to bifurcate the income from commercial activity and non-commercial activity and assess the income of the assessee as directed above. With the above observations, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed. [ S.2(15), 10(23C), 13 ]

Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Assoication v. ITO (Chd.)( Trib), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statues- Exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption notification. When there is ambiguity in exemption notification which is subject to strict interpretation, the benefit of such ambiguity cannot be claimed by the subject/assessee and it must be interpreted in favour of the revenue. The ratio in Sun Export Corporation ,Bombay v. Collector of Customs Bombay ( 1997) 6 SCC 564 is not correct and all the decisions which took similar view as in Sun Export Case stands overruled.

Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar ( 2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) www.itatonline.org

S. 219 :Credit for advance tax –Succession of business – Receipt on account of Mobilisation advance under work order when assessee was partnership — Succession by Company — Credit should be given to the assessee in subsequent year whenever receipt or part of receipt recognised as income by Company.

ITO v. Dreamax Infrastructure Developers. (2018) 65 ITR 500 / 194 TTJ 57 (UO)(Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search-Undisclosed income- Without any incriminating material found in the course of search additions cannot be made –Deduction of claim u/s 80IB(10) which was allowed in the regular assessment proceedings cannot be disallowed .[ S.80IB(10) ]

Engineers Syndicate India pvt Ltd v. Dy CIT ( 2018) 65 ITR 572 ( Hyd) (Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Works contract -Genuineness of expenditure was not in doubt – First year of business – Rejection of books of account is held to be not valid – Income declared of 7.44% is held to be justified .

ITO v. Dreamax Infrastructure Developers. (2018) 65 ITR 500 / 194 TTJ 57 (UO) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S.145: Method of accounting –Without pointing out any specific defects in the books of account , rejection of books of account and estimating higher income is not justified .

ACIT v. Future Distributors. (2018) 65 ITR 59(SN) (Kol) (Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment – Amalgamation- Assessment in name of Company not in existence having amalgamated with another is liable to be cancelled as nullity being bad in law . [ S.263 ]

Basundhara Goods P. Ltd. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 62 (SN) (Kol) ( Trib)

S.142(2A): Inquiry before assessment– Special audit– Complexity of accounts not shown —Special audit made only to overcome limitation — Order for special audit is held to be not justified .

Unitech Limited v. DCIT (2018) 65 ITR 434 (Delhi) (Trib)

S.92B: Transfer pricing- International transactions — Investment in share capital of subsidiaries outside India — Advancing towards investment and for expansion of business out of interest free funds — No interest can be charged — Not in nature of international transaction-Transfer pricing provisions is not applicable — Adjustment is not required .[ S.92C ]

Bartronics India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 65 ITR 540/ 195 TTJ 314 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Assessment Order for earlier year pending in appeal — Assessing officer to pass consequential order with regard to set off of brought forward losses keeping in mind outcome of appeal .

Manipal Health Systems P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 51( SN)) (Bang) (Trib)