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 – Tax on payment duly paid by recipient and receipt reflected in return — AO was directed to decide a fresh -Shipping expenses and freight and forwarding charges — AO was directed to decide a fresh [ S.172, 201(IA) ]

PMS Diesels. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 19 (SN) (Amritsar) (Trib)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source- Cash payments to temporary data entry operators below prescribed limit for deduction of tax at source — Disallowance was held to be not justified .

ACIT v. Shruti Nanda ( Smt). (2018) 65 ITR 189 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India –Non -resident – Royalty -Wireless agreement with Tata and Reliance – Burden is on revenue to prove taxability in India -Not taxable in India-DTAA- India -USA- [ Art ,12 (7)(b) ]

Qualcomm Incorporated v. DIT (2018) 65 ITR 248 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 271D: Penalty – takes or accepts any loan or deposit- Representative of the assessee consented to the proposition that apart from the bona fides of the transaction, assessee is also required to prove the existence of reasonable cause to come within the immunity provided in S. 273B of the Act, Accordingly the Tribunal has not dealt with any further with the reservations expressed by the Division Bench in the reference note. Accordingly on facts the assessee has failed to show that there was a reasonable cause for getting loans in violation of the provisions of S. 269SS of the Act . Levy of penalty is held to be justified . [ S.269SS, 273B ]

Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT( 2018) 172 ITD 33/168 DTR 65/ 194 TTJ 690 / 65 ITR 726 (Mum)(Trib)(SB), www.itatonline.org

S.254(1): Appellate Tribunal –Additional claim-Block assessment -The fact that the second proviso to S. 158BC(a) prohibits an assessee who is subjected to search from filing a revised return of income does not mean that the assessee is prohibited from raising an additional claim before the appellate authorities [ S.158BC ]

Alok Textile Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 252 :Appellate Tribunal – Appointment of Tribunal Members under new rules – Persons selected as Member of the Appellate Tribunal will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.

Kudrat Sandhu v. UOI ( 2018) 257 Taxman 185(SC), www.itatonline.org

S. 147: Reassessment-If the recorded reasons do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely state that it would be at least Rs.1,00,000, and if the reopening is to “verify” suspicious transactions, prima-facie, the reasons do not indicate reasonable belief of the AO and the notice is without jurisdiction-Interim stay was granted till final hearing . [ S.148 ]

Dulraj U. Jain v. ACIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice -Reassessment- If the notice u/s 143(2) is issued prior to the furnishing of return by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148, the notice issued u/s 143(2) is not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said notice has to be quashed. S. 292BB does not save the assessment [ S.147) 148, 292BB ]

Halcrow Groups Ltd.v. ADIT ( 2018) 194 TTJ 704 /167 DTR 103(Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 2(1A): Agricultural income-Mushroom is not a ‘vegetable’, ‘plant’, ‘fruit’ or ‘animal’ but is a ‘fungus’. Anything which is produced by performing basic operations on the soil is an “agricultural product” and the income therefrom is “agricultural income”. The nature of the product and the fact that it is not a ‘plant’, ‘flower’, ‘vegetable’ or ‘fruit’ is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is whether the production is by performing some basic operations on the soil. Accordingly the income from production and sale of Mushrooms can be termed as ‘agricultural’ income . [ S.10(1)]

DCIT v. Inventaa Industries Private Limited ( 2018) 168 DTR 81 / 178 ITD 1/ 194 TTJ 657/ 65 ITR 625 ( Hyd)(Trib)(SB), www.itatonline.org

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers –CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment and also change the head of income without giving any show –cause notice . [ S.54F ]

Naresh Sunderlal Chug v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 116 (Pune) (Trib.)