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. 44BB : Mineral oils – Computation -Consideration received under contract is not fees for technical fees or royalty -Consideration received was held to be taxable as business income – DTAA -India United Arab Emirates- Duration of operation of less than 120 days is not material . [ S. 9(1) (vi), 9(1)(vii) Art. 5(1),12 ]

Seabird Exploration Fz Llc, In Re (2018) 403 ITR 82/302 CTR 19 / 165 DTR 33 (AAR)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – ‘On-money’ – Sale of land -Burden is on the department to show that ‘on-money’ consideration passed to the seller from the purchaser- Opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was not provided to the assessee- Addition was deleted . [ S.131 ]

CIT v. Sunita Dhadda [2018] 403 ITR 309 (St.) (SC)/Editorial : Order in CIT v. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 406 ITR 220 ( Raj) (HC)// CIT v. Vijay Laxmi Dhadda (Smt) (2018) 406 ITR 220 ( Raj) (HC) is affirmed .

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

S. 21: Misconduct – SEBI and Disciplinary Committee of ICAI have found the respondent Chartered Accountant is guilty of several irregularities in public issue of a company – Removal of name from Register of Members of ICAI for a period of one year was held to be valid .

Council of the ICAI v. Ashok Kumar ( 2018) 252 Taxman 129 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings – Splitting up or reconstruction-Printing press- New industrial undertaking of printing press is not the expansion of existing unit, hence entitle to deduction.

CIT v. Bansi Lal Gupta ( 2018) 300 CTR 332 ( J& K) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Acceptance of deposits prohibited by law- Interest paid on deposits is held to be not allowable as deduction in view of Explanation to S. 37(1) of the Act .[ Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958,S.4, 17 , RBI Act, 1934 S. 45S ]

CIT v. Arun Thomas ( 2018) 161 DTR 161/300 CTR 276 (Ker) (HC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing Arm’s Length Price -Selection of comparables — Functional dissimilarities and distinction in services provided has to be excluded . [ S.92CA ]

CIT v. B. C. Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 45 / 253 Taxman 128 /164 DTR 299 / 302 CTR 167 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Unless it is shown that there are important functional dissimilarities or other material facts ,exclusion or inclusion of other comparable would not constitute substantial question of law [ S.260A ]

CIT v. Becton Dickinson India (P) Ltd ( 2018) 92 taxmann.com 45/254 Taxman 382 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Court held that the assessee has already paid Rs 25.66 crores and the appeal is coming up for hearing accordingly the assessee was directed to pay another Rs 10 crores only during the pendency of appeal .[ S.254(1) ]

Flipkart India ( P) Ltd v. UOI (2018) 254 Taxman 79 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 271D : Penalty -Takes or accepts any loan or deposit –Deposits from staff members in cash without any reasonable cause levy of penalty was held to be justified . [ S. 269SS, 273B ]

CIT v. AL-Ameen Educational Trust ( 2018) 254 Taxman 402/ 165 DTR 417/ 308 CTR 151 (Ker) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –The limitation period for filing a Rectification Application has to be computed from the date of “communication” of the order and not from the date of passing the order. The fact that the order was pronounced in open court is not relevant because the parties will not be aware of the mistakes therein until after perusal of the order.

Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh v DCIT ( Chad)(Trib), www.itatonline.org Universal Print O Paxk v.ITO ( Chad)(Trib), www.itatonline.org