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.147: Reassessment— After the expiry of four years- Failure to disclose material facts—Failure to deduct tax at source –Discount on sales – Revenue has not able to show that the assessee has claimed discount on sales as expenditure ,therefore Stay was granted in terms of prayer (d) of the petition . Court also observed that the AO is free to examine all issues in terms of Explanation III to S. 147 of the Act. [ S.148 ]

Novartis India Ltd. v CIT (2018) 165 DTR 198 (Bom) (HC)

S. 139 : Return of income – Delay of 37 days -Chane of auditor -CBDT was directed to condone the delay of 39 days in filling of return . [ S. 119(2)(b) ]

Regen Powertech Private Ltd. v. CBDT (2018) 165 DTR 187 / 255 Taxman 100 / 303 CTR 727 /( 2019) 410 ITR 483(Mad) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Comparability Parameters and Application of Filters- Inappropriate filters had been used by asssessee which would lead to an incorrect choice of comparables. DRP passed order excluding three companies from final set of comparables drawn by TPO-Tribunal partly allowed assessee’s appeal, however, upheld inclusion of Thirdware Solutions Limited and exclusion of CG Vak Soft-ware & Exports Ltd. and Quintegra Solutions Ltd. as comparables for benchmarking international transaction under software development services segment- Order of Tribunal is up held .

Steria India Ltd v. DCIT (2018) 165 DTR 89 / 302 CTR 153 / 255 Taxman 110 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Cancellation of registration on basis of violation of S.13(1)(c ) of the Act is held to be not valid [ S.11, 13(1)( c) ]

CIT v. Sadguru Narendra Maharaj Sansthan (2018) 165 DTR 101 / 302 CTR 304 (Bom) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Withdrawal of approval- Collection of capitalisation fee- Illegal activities -Rs 52 crores was collected as anonymous donations – Sham or bogus trusts cannot be held to be entitle to exemption . [ S.10(23C) (vi) ]

Navodya Education Trust v UOI ( 2018)405 ITR 30 / 253 Taxman 412/ 302 CTR 381 / 165 DTR 16 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: Decision of single judge is reversed Navodya Education Trust v. UOI ( 2019) 417 ITR 157 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Limitation – If the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law , writ is maintainable- Notice issued by the PCIT is quashed [ Art, 226 ]

Indira Industries v. PCIT ( 2018) 169 DTR 171 / 305 CTR 314 (Mad)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1):Appellate Tribunal –Stay- While deciding an application for stay of demand, the Appellate Tribunal can only consider the prima facie case of merits. It cannot give a final finding on the merits and decide the appeal itself.[ Central Excise Act , S. 35B ]

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. CST( 2018) (12) G.S.T.L.140 ( Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 159 : Legal representatives –Notice or order on dead person or wound up company is a nullity subject to condition that the department is made aware of the death or winding up. If the assessee participated in the proceedings and thereafter has taken the plea that order or notice was served on dead person , wound-up company are nullity. In such cases, the assessment is liable to be set-aside for a fresh assessment in accordance with law instead of its annulment.[ S.163, 176 ]

Pesak Ventures Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2018) 67 ITR 495(Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 143(3) : Assessment –On Money- The fact that the assessee has sold flats at an undervaluation does not mean that he has understated the consideration and earned undisclosed ‘on money’. The mere presumption that excess price could have been charged is not a ground for coming to the conclusion that the assessee did charge a higher price. The burden of proving such understatement or concealment is on the Revenue- Addition was deleted .

Shah Realtors v. ACIT (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits –Bogus share premium-Addition cannot be made on the ground that the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before the AO. The assessee can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. Creditworthiness of the subscriber cannot be disputed by the AO of the assessee but by the AO of the subscriber. If the assessee has discharged its onus to prove identity, creditworthiness & genuineness of the share applicants, the onus shifts to AO to disprove the documents furnished by assessee. In absence of any investigation, much less gathering of evidence by the AO, an addition cannot be sustained merely based on inferences drawn by circumstance .

ITO v. Wiz-Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd.( Kol)(Trib), www.itatonline.org