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. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Director-Advance received for blocking deal of sale and purchase on behalf of the company for business transaction cannot be assessed as deemed divided.

Dinesh Pandey. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 501 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 273A : Penalty – Commissioner – Power to reduce or waive -Long term capital gain shown as exempt in the original was accepted by filing the revised computation as income from other sources – Genuine hardship financially or in any manner was not proved -Rejection of application was held go be justified [ S. 10(38), 45, 56, 271(1) ( c ),273A((1)(4) ]

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

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Net profit rate at 10% is applied – Followed the jurisdictional Bench decision and not the judgement cited by the assessee- Tribunal used jurisdictional discretion which cannot be rectified .

Ajay Kappor v.CIT ( 2018) 165 DTR 433 / 302 CTR 431/ 256 Taxman 20( J& K) (HC)

S. 245 : Refunds- Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable -Adjustment of the refund without following the ratio laid down by jurisdictional in Hindustan Unilever Ltd v. Dy CIT ( 2015) 377 ITR 281 ( Bom) (HC) and also speaking order is set aside .

Vodafone India Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 294 (Bom) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Attachment of property—Limitation -Appeal – Ground that the recovery proceedings is now time barred is rejected on the ground that it was inappropriate for Tax Recovery Officer to continue proceedings for realization of tax arrears on account of pendency of proceedings challenging decisions taken by Tax Recovery Officer, irrespective of fact as to whether there was any interim order in such proceedings or not, while computing outer time limit provided for under sub-rule (1) of Rule 68B.[ Sch .II R. 11, 68B ]

Mohammed Niyas v. CIT (2018) 165 DTR 240 / 302 CTR 420 (Ker) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – As 20% of demand had not been deposited , assessee’s petition to stay of recovery is dismissed [ S.220(6), 226(3) ]

Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 151/ 305 CTR 612 (MP)( HC) SEZ Indore Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2018) 165 DTR 151/ 305 CTR 612 (MP)( HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Waiver of interest – Principal amount of tax was not paid for over fourteen years – Rejection of waiver application for interest is held to be valid .[ S. 132,158BC, 220(2) ]

Video Master v. CIT(2018) 165 DTR 47 /303 CTR 117/ 413 ITR 153(Bom) (HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate -Charitable trust – AO was directed to dispose the application expeditiously . [ S.11,12AA ]

South Indian Education Society v DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 278 (Bom) (HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment – Search- Addition was made on the basis of seized material – Block assessment cannot be held to be invalid on the ground that the authorisation was not in the name of the assessee but the premises of the assesee – Neither AO nor Tribunal in appeal could examine warrant of authorization for purpose of examining whether there existed reasons to believe on material before competent authority to order search u/s 132(1) . Assessee has not disputed the panchanama prepared by the search team in the name of assessee- Block assessment is held to be valid . In the present case search and seizure was actually made on the premises on the premises of assessee and documents and material collected therefrom also pertain to it , therefore S.158BD is not attracted . [ S.132, 158BD ]

CIT v. Verma Roadways . (2018) 165 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 163 (All) (HC)

S. 153A: Assessment – Search-Documents seized revealed total expenditure that assessee incurred in respect of both his children was not disclosed in the return of income , addition confirmed by the Tribunal is up held . As both brothers have signed the panchnama there was no necessity of issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act . [ S.132 ]

Vinod Kumar Gupta v. DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 409/ 305 CTR 288 (Delhi) (HC)