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.260A: Appeal -High Court -Departmental Counsel- CBDT should re consider the practice of appointing retired revenue officers as panel counsel. CBDT should lay down a standard procedure in respect of manner in which the Departmental Officer/ Assessing Officer assist the Counsel for the Revenue while promoting/ protecting Revenue’s cause so that the Revenue’s Counsel are not left to fend for themselves. Copy of the judgement was forwarded to Chairman CBDT.

PCIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

S. 253: Appellate Tribunal -Registrar’s Court -The Registrar of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and decide on applications for condonation of delay. Only the Court/ Tribunal have the power. The order passed by the Registrar is ultra vires his power and non est in law. He should desist from passing such orders [ S. 152(1).253(5) ]

Hiten Ramanlal Mahimtura (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 158BB: Block Assessment-Survey- Material found in the course of search and survey which has been made simultaneously made at the premises of connected person can be utilised while making block assessment [ S. 132, 133A, 158BC ]

CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar ( 2018)404 ITR 526/ 165 DTR 281/302 CTR 177 / 255 Taxman 286 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v. Braj Binani ( 2018) 404 ITR 526/ 165 DTR 281/302 CTR 177/ 255 Taxman 286 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v. P.K .Ganeshwar ( 2018) 404 ITR 526/165 DTR 281/302 CTR 177/ 255 Taxman 286 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v.Yashoda Shetty ( 2018) 404 ITR 526/ 165 DTR 281/302 CTR 177/ 255 Taxman 286 (SC) , www.itatonline.org/Editorial: Decision in CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar ( 2008) 300 ITR 152 ( Mad) (HC ), CIT v. P. K. Ganeshwar ( 2009) 308 ITR 124 ( Mad) (HC) , CIT v. Yashoda Shetty ( 2015) 371 ITR 75 ( Karn) is reversed

S. 92CB: Transfer Pricing- Safe Harbour Rules- AO has no authority to make any reference to the TPO to ascertain the arm’s length price of the assessee’s specified domestic transactions. CBDT’s circular dated 10.3.2006 could not have and does not lay down anything to the contrary.[ S. 92C,92CA ]

Mehsana District Co-operative v. DCIT( 2018) 93 taxmann.com 219 (Guj)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

S.92C: Transfer pricing- The “international transaction” as defined in S. 92F(v) has to be a genuine transaction. Transfer pricing provisions do not apply to non-genuine or sham transactions [ S.92F( v) ]

Mitchell Drilling India Private Limited v. DCIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 458/ 66 ITR 126 (Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 80IA :Industrial undertakings – Infrastructure development- Inland Container Depots (ICDs) are Inland Ports and income earned out of these Depots are eligible for deduction. However, the actual computation is to be made in accordance with the different Notifications issued by the Customs department with regard to different ICDs located at different places [ S.80IA(4) ]

CIT v. Container Corporation of India Ltd.( 2018) 404 ITR 397 / 165 DTR 353/302 CTR 221/ 255 Taxman 334 (SC) , www.itatonline.org/CIT v. A.L. Logistics ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 165 DTR 353/302 CTR 221/ 255 Taxman 334 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v. Continental Ware Housing Corporation ( 2018) 165 DTR 353/302 CTR 221 / 255 Taxman 334 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

S. 80HHC : Export business –Supporting manufacturer – Question whether supporting manufacturer who receives export incentives in the form of duty draw back (DDB), Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) etc. is entitled for deduction u/s 80HHC is referred to the larger Bench

CIT v. Carpet India ( 2018)405 ITR 469/ 165 DTR 233 / 302 CTR 183/ 255 Taxman 438 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source- The amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 in Section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act is retrospective in nature . i.e .from the date of insertion of the said provision w.e.f AY. 2005 -06

CIT v. Calcutta Export Company ( 2018) 404 ITR 654/165 DTR 321 /302 CTR 201 / 255 Taxman 293 (SC) , www.itatonline.org/CIT v. Rajendra Kumar ( 2018) 165 DTR 321/302 CTR 201/ 255 Taxman 293 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v. Harish Chand Ahuja ( 2018) 165 DTR 321/302 CTR 201/ 255 Taxman 293 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

S. 28(iv) : Business income- Waiver of loan-Remission or cessation of trading liability –Loan waiver cannot be assessed as cessation of liability , if the assessee has not claimed any deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act qua the payment of interests in any previous year and S.28(iv) does not apply if the receipts are in the nature of cash or money [ S. 4,36(1)(iii),41(1) ]

CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd( 2018)404 ITR 1 / 165 DTR 337 /302 CTR 213 / 255 Taxman 305 (SC) , www.itatonline.org /CIT v. Dholgiri Industries (P) Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 1/ 165 DTR 337/302 CTR 213/ 255 Taxman 305 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v.Jindal Equipments Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 1/ 165 DTR 337/302 CTR 213/ 255 Taxman 305 (SC) , www.itatonline.org CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes (P) Ltd ( 2018) 404 ITR 1/ 165 DTR 337 (SC)/ 302 CTR 213/ 255 Taxman 305 www.itatonline.orgEditorial: Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd v. CIT ( 2003) 261 ITR 501 ( Bom) (HC) is affirmed

S. 35AB :Know-how –Acquiring know how means acquiring on ownership basis or on lease deduction can not be allowed as revenue expenditure [ S.37(1) ]

Standard Batteries Ltd. v. CIT ( 2018) 166 DTR 289 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org