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.206AA: Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Payment to non –resident – Assessee can apply the rate prescribed under DTAA if it is beneficial to him- Provision of S.206AA does not override provisions of DTAA [ S.90,195 ]

Emmsons International Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 140 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194I : Deduction at source – Rent –Hoarding- If a person has taken a particular space on rent and thereafter sub-lets same, fully or in part, for putting-up a hoarding, such payments would be liable for tax deduction at source under S. 194I and not under S. 194C of the Act .[ S.194C, 201(1))201(IA) ]

Accord Advertising (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 111 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.56: Income from other sources- Share premium- Addition cannot be made in respect of share premium received by assessee from its holding companies as said share premium was on account of capital transaction and was not an income within charging sections of Act . S 56(2)(viib) read with section 2(24)(xvi) are not made applicable to shares issued to non-residents mainly to encourage foreign investments. [ S.2(24)(xvi), 56(1) ,56 (2)(viib), 68, Companies Act, 2013 ,S,52, Companies Act, 1956 S.78 ]

DCIT v. Finproject India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 82 / 194 TTJ 277/ 170 DTR 52/ 64 ITR 27 (SN) (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources –Fair market value of shares- Direct Cash Flow Method (DCF) -No evidence was produced for verifying the correctness of data supplied by the assessee .AO was justified in rejecting DCF method and adopting Net Asset value method . [ R.11UA ]

Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd ( 2018) 171 ITD 74 ( Delhi) (Trib.)

S.37(1):Business expenditure- Settlement charges paid to SEBI without admitting or denying guilt and was paid just to settle dispute, said settlement charges/consent fee could not be equated with penalty for violation of law under Explanation 1 to S. 37(1) of the Act and is allowable as business expenditure . [Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 , S.11, 1B and of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 R.11 ]

DCIT v. Anil Dhirajlal Ambani. (2018) 171 ITD 144/ 66 ITR 607 / 172 DTR 17/ 195 TTJ 867 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 35 :Scientific research – When recognition to facility given by prescribed authority is maintained, the deduction to be allowed -Non-receipt of Form No. 3CM is a procedural lapse and is not fatal for denial of claim of deduction [ S.35(2AB]

Minilec India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 124 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 273A : Penalty – Commissioner – Power to reduce or waive -Suspicious Long term capital gains- Levy of penalty is held to be justified. Failure to produce any evidence / document to show that it was called genuine hardship financially or in any manner was not furnished – Rejection of waiver application was held to be justified [ S.10(38), 45 , 271(1)(c)]

Dayaram Khandelwal v. CIT (2018)405 ITR 569/ 165 DTR 425/302 CTR 441 (MP) (HC)

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors – Outsourced non-technical work such as collection of data to various contractors, said work being in nature of ‘works contract’ and cannot be considered as technical services – Justified in deducting tax at source under S.194C.[ S.194J ]

ACIT v. WTI Advance Technology Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 11 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 161 : Liability of representative assessee -Income from house property- Shares of beneficiaries are definite – Trust cannot be assessed separately at maximum rate- Tax on the share of each beneficiary will have to be separately calculated as if it formed a part of the beneficiary’ s income. Tax payable by the Trust will be the sum total of the tax calculated on the share of each beneficiary . [ S.22, 26 , 164 ]

Abad Trust. v. ADIT (E) (2018) 171 ITD 50 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S.148: Reassessment-Notice -Issue of notice at old address after expiry of period of limitation ,in spite of change in the official record by updating PAN data base- Reassessment is held to be bad in law [ S.147 ,292BB ]

Ardent Steel Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 405 ITR 422/ 302 CTR 362/166 DTR 33 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)