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. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – All issues to be mandatorily adjudicated when specific ground is raised. Matter remanded to CIT(A) to decide all the issues raised before him afresh which were not adjudicated [ R.27 ]

DCIT v. J. M. Financial Institutional Securities Ltd.( 2018) 67 ITR 52 (SN) (Mum.) (Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S.5:Scope of total income – Non-Resident- Alleged deposit in HSBC foreign bank Account at Geneva – A non -resident having money in a foreign country cannot be taxed in India if such money has neither been received or deemed to be received , nor ha it accrued or arisen to him or deemed to accrue or arise to him in India -Addition cannot be made for the alleged deposit in foreign Bank accounts [ S. 5 (2) ,6, 9 ]

Dy CIT v. Dipendu Bapalal Shah ( 2018) 171 ITD 602 /( 2019) 197 TTJ 149(Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 48 : Capital gains – Computation -While computing the capital gains the benefit of indexation should be given on basis of date of acquisition of asset and not on basis of actual payment [ S. 45 ,55(2)]

Shishir Gorle v.DCIT ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –While dealing with the application for rectification , the Tribunal where it finds is an error apparent on record then it should recall the original order and place the appeal for consideration of the issue on merits before the Regular bench -It is not appropriate to dispose of the controversy on merits of the submission while disposing of the Rectification application .[ S.11(1) ]

Universal Education v. ITAT (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Income derived by a trade , professional or similar association from specific services performed for its members -Non-Resident- Mutuality – Liaison office of non-resident non profit organisation for the benefit of members in the absence of profit motive and surplus if any was ploughed back in to the organisation again to be utilised for same objects-Income cannot be asssseed as business income -Receipts from non members only 2.05% and also isolated incident which has not affected the dominant object of the applicant – Membership fee and contribution from members is also not liable to tax in India – Once principle of mutuality is applied , the question of a permanent establishment did not arise – Receipt or income cannot be taxed applying the principle of mutuality .[ S.28(iii)]

International Zinc Association In re ( 2018) 404 ITR 766/167 DTR 81/ 303 CTR 474 ( AAR)

Interpretation of taxing statues- Rule against double taxation

Mahaveer Kumar Jain v. CIT ( 2018) 404 ITR 738/ 165 DTR 113/ 302 CTR 1/ 255 Taxman 161 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statues- “Explanation” and “Proviso” .

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) (No. 1) v. CCIT ( 2018) 406 ITR 178/ 256 Taxman 396 / 303 CTR 448/ 168 DTR 48(SC)/ www.itatonlin.org

S.195: Deduction at source- Non –resident- commission paid to non-resident agents for services rendered outside is not liable to deduct tax at source.

DCIT v. Sterling Ornaments (P) Ltd( 2018) 65 ITR 492 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Bogus Purchases- Purchases cannot be treated as Bogus if (a) they are duly supported by bills, (b) all payments are made by account payee cheques, (c) the supplier has confirmed the transactions, (d) there is no evidence to show that the purchase consideration has come back to the assessee in cash, (e) the sales out of purchases have been accepted & (f) the supplier has accounted for the purchases made by the assessee and paid taxes thereon [ S.143(3) ]

PCIT v. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia ( 2018) 94 Taxmann.com 324 ( Guj)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia ( 2018) 94 Taxmann.com 325 (SC), www.itatonline.org

S. 68:Cash credits- Bogus share capital-If the alleged share applicants do not appear before the AO pursuant to the S. 131 summons and the documentation is inadequate, it is a “completely bogus claim”. The assessee cannot argue that the AO should have made inquiries from the AO of the share applicants as to their credit-worthiness [ S.131 ]

J. J. Development Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (Cal)(HC), www.itatonline.org