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. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Professional consultancy fees, management fees for support service and sap consultancy charges — Transactional net margin method is most appropriate method.

Knorr Bremse India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 15 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Net Margin method-Loss on sale of fixed assets not part of operating cost -AO has to carry out adjustment in computing profit level indicator as well as profit level indicator of comparables – Errors which crept in to while computing margins of comparables to be rectified -Transfer pricing study for a particular year is unique for each year and depend upon functions performed , risk assumed and assets employed by entities , there is no rule of consistency – Broad functional comparability of entities to be carried out there may not be product to product comparision- AO to reappreciate functional comparbility between assessee and comaprbles . [ S.92CA ]

Vishay Semiconductor India Pvt Ltd v. ACIT ( 2018) 65 ITR 1 (Mum) (Trib)

S.45: Capital gains — Business income — Investment in shares – Just because volume and frequency of transactions are high profit on sale of shares cannot be assessed as business income [S.28 (i) ]

Second Leasing P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 10 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S.45:Capital gains — Un registered agreement – The settlement for cancellation of agreement took place after the close of the assessment year 2012-13. There was no contract in the eyes of law under S. 53A after 2001 unless the contract was registered . Addition was not sustainable .[ S. 2(47)(v), Transfer of Property Act, 1882,S.53A ]

DCIT v. Shailender Kumar Gautam. (2018) 65 ITR 14 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib) Vishwajit Gautam v.Dy.CIT (2018) 65 ITR 14 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payments made to the vendors for the work performed by them by deploying semi-skilled personnel did not involve any technical or professional knowledge on their part, and the work could not be brought within the sweep of S. 194J- Disallowance cannot be made as the assessee correctly deducted the tax at source u/s 194C of the Act .[ S.194C, 194J ]

ACIT v. WTI Advance Technology Ltd. (2018) 65 ITR 5 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S.37(1):Business expenditure — Travelling expenses — No disallowance could be made once expenditure is subjected to Fringe benefits tax.

Second Leasing P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 10 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Fines and penalties — Levy of penal interest by Reserve Bank of India for failure to maintain statutory liquidity ratio is entitled to deduction in Assessment year in which liability is crystallised.

Chennai Port Trust Employees’ Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 65 ITR 1 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016

S.201(1)((h): Tax arrear- penalty levied for contravention of S. 269SS and 269T is eligible to claim the benefit of the Scheme . [ S.202(b), 269SS, 271D, 271E ]

CIT v. Grihalakshmi Productions And Another. (2018) 405 ITR 75 / 169 DTR 70/304 CTR 199(Ker) (HC) Editorial: Decision in Grihalakshmi Productions And Another v. JCIT (2017) 396 ITR 10 (Ker) (HC) is affirmed . SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT v. Grihalakshmi Productions (2018) 405 ITR 76 (SC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment -Reasonable apprehension that Assessee may default as the transactions discovered to be bogus and net worth of assessee declining accordingly the provisional attachment is held to be Justified [ S.147 ]

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2017) 298 CTR 230 /156 DTR 217 /84 taxmann.com 136 (2018) 405 ITR 132 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Land converted in to stock in trade -Leased property – Computation of capital gains without considering nature of right of assessee over land , accordingly the revision was held to be valid as the AO has not examined the matter in the correct perspective . [ S.45( 2) ]

CIT v. Upper India Couper Paper Mills Co. P. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 48/ 304 CTR 275/ 169 DTR 233 (All) (HC)