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. 68:Cash credits- Survey-Addition of undisclosed income cannot be made on the basis of (a) entries in dairy found during survey & (b) admission of director in s. 133A survey if assessee has filed a retraction and alleged that the entries/ statement were recorded under pressure. Statement u/s 133A is merely information simplicitor and not evidence per se. Addition cannot be sustained if the Dept has not investigated the matter and find material to support the addition. [S.133A ]

PCIT v. Texraj Realty P. Ltd ( 2018) 95 Taxmann.com 102 (Guj)(HC), www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statutes -Income-tax — Provisions of Customs Act And Excise Act are different and not relevant in construing provisions of income-tax Act.

CIT v. Lakshminarayana Mining Company. (2018) 404 ITR 522/ 166 DTR 429/ 303 CTR 417 (Karn) (HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Sanction -Show cause notice-Writ against show cause notice is premature and not maintainable -It is not necessary for the authority to issue a show cause notice before granting an order of sanction .[ S. 276(c )(1), 277 , Art .226 ]

Krishnaswami Vijayakumar v. DIT (2018) 404 ITR 442 (Mad) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Capital gains- Quantum proceeding was decided in favour of the assessee- Penalty cannot be imposed [ S.45 ]

PCIT v. Balwinder Singh Bhunder. (2018) 404 ITR 448 (P&H) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Additional grounds – Tribunal must consider additional grounds raised on question of law arising from facts on record .

Ravindra Arora v. ACIT (2018) 404 ITR 452 /302 CTR 174(Raj) (HC) Praveen Arora v. ACIT (2018) 404 ITR 452/302 CTR 174 (Raj) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – limitation – Tribunal considering appeal from order of assessment and dismissal of appeal from order of revision without considering on merit is held to be not valid .[ S.263 ]

Hubli Electricity Supply Co. v. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 462/ 170 DTR 332 /(2020) 314 CTR 650(Karn) (HC)

S. 244A : Refunds – Interest on refunds -Tax deduction at source- Order of commissioner denying interest on facts is upheld by High Court — Court cannot go into merits of contention unless the order is perverse . [ Art .226 ]

State Bank of Travancore. v. CIT (2018) 404 ITR 535 (Ker) (HC)

S. 237 : Refunds -Duty of the Authority to pass orders on claim of refunds without delay and with in three months from the receipt of the a copy of order.

Aircel Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 404 ITR 455 / 169 DTR 327/ 304 CTR 630 (Mad) (HC)

S. 195 :Deduction at source – Non-resident – Fees for technical services — Royalty – Building platform comprising secure servers equipped with proprietary software which pulled content from customer’s Web Server and replicated it for faster, more reliable delivery — End-users accessing customer’s Website through platform— Amount received by the assessee is not royalty -Assessee did not have any permanent establishment in India . Accordingly not liable to deduct tax at source -DTAA-India -USA- [ S.9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), Art,5, 12(3),(4) ]

Akamai Technologies Inc., IN RE. (2018) 404 ITR 495/167 DTR 1/303 CTR 162 (AAR)

S. 158BB : Block assessment – Undisclosed income –Addition cannot be made on the basis of returns filed by assess’s wife and other related entities on the basis of valuation reports of departmental Valuer – Diamond found in the course of search addition was held to be justified as the retraction was made after inordinate delay and not supported by any evidence. [ S.132(4) ]

CIT v. S. V. Sreenivasan. (2018) 404 ITR 433 (Mad) (HC)