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.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment of commission to foreign agent –Not liable to deduct tax at source, hence , no disallowances can be made .[ S .5(2)(b),9(1)(i) , 195 ]

ACIT v. Manufax (India) S. B. (Agra)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment being not fees for technical services ,not liable to deduct tax at source -DTAA-India –Canada [ S.9(2), Art 12 ]

CIT v. Mira Exim Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 28 (Delhi) (HC)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source-Compensation paid to joint venture –Not liable to o deduct tax at source – Disallowance was held to be not justified [ S. 194H, 194J ]

Entrepreneurs (Calcutta) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 521 (Cal) (HC)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source –. A party cannot be called upon to perform an impossible Act i.e. to comply with a provision not in force at the relevant time but introduced later by retrospective amendment. S. 40(a)(i) disallowance can be made only if the royalty falls under Explanation 2 to s. 9(1)(vi) but not if it falls under Explanation 6 to s. 9(1)(vi) [ S.9(1)(vi), 194C,194J, 195 ]

CIT v. NGC Networks (India)(Pvt. Ltd( 2018) 167 DTR 245 / 304 CTR 306/ (2021) 432 ITR 326 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

S.40(a)(ia):Amount not deductible- Deduction at source-Purchase made from different group companies –Difference opinion – Matter was referred to Chief Justice for appropriate order -DTAA-India Japan –USA [ S.9(1)(i), 90, 195,Art ,24 ]

CIT v. Mitusubishi Corporation India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 252 Taxman 31 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: Mitusubishi Corporation India (P.) Ltd. v.ACIT (2014) 62 SOT 58 (URO) / 41 taxmann.com 162 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Proviso excepting assessee from disallowance where payee has declared payment in his return and paid tax thereon has retrospectively applicable, hence no disallowance can be made .[ S. 201(1) ]

CIT v. Manoj Kumar Singh. (2018) 402 ITR 238/ 303 CTR 294/ 167 DTR 179 (All) (HC)

S.40(a)(i): Amounts not deductible- Payment to non –resident -Proviso amended by Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 is not applicable for year 2002-03, hence not liable to deduct tax at source [S.9(1)(i),195 ]

DCIT v. Hazaria Cryogenic Engineering & Construction Management (P.) Ltd. (2018) 168 ITD 568 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure -Bogus purchase -Restriction of profit rate of 12.5% per. cent. of bogus purchases was held to be proper.

CIT v. Shekhar M. Kharote. (2018) 61 ITR 182 (Mum) (Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Bogus purchases —Civil contractor – Merely on the basis of information form sales tax department purchases cannot be disallowed without giving an opportunity of cross examination .

ACIT v. Pinaki D. Panani. (Smt.) (2018) 61 ITR 7 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure — Civil contractor — Purchases- No defects was found in the books of account – No disallowance can be made [ S. 145 ]

DCIT v. IHR Associates. (2018) 61 ITR 70 (Chd) (Trib)