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.226: Recovery – Stay was granted by directing to pay 5% of demand in dispute in two instalments as against 15% was directed to be paid earlier order

Antony Sunny v. JCIT (2018) 164 DTR 290 (Ker) (HC)

S.226:Recovery -Stay -Tax Recovery Officer could not grant stay of order of assessment and remedy lies only before AO or before First Appellate Authority AO had to consider case on merits and then take decision in matter and not mechanically go by guidelines issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as guidelines themselves provide for contingencies, which might vary from case to case. [ S.281B ]

S. Arputharaj v. Dy. CIT (2018) 162 DTR 25 / 300 CTR 558 (Mad) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery -Tribunal has directed to pay 55% of outstanding demand- On writ High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose the appeal expeditiously – Interim order of stay was declined as the appeal was slated for final arguments before the Appellate Tribunal .

Google India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) (2018)252 Taxman 27 / 163 DTR 161 / 301 CTR 485 (Karn)(HC)

S.220:Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) -Direction of the CIT to enhancing to pay 50% of demand when first appeal is pending is held to be bad in law – Application for stay was pending before CIT(A)-CIT(A ) was directed to dispose the stay application with in four weeks and stay will continue for further period of two weeks.

Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v PCIT (2018) 164 DTR 257/ 256 Taxman 240 (Bom)(HC)

S.154: Rectification of mistake apparent on record -Levy of interest- Delay in filing of return-Waiver of interest – Petition was dismissed .[ S. 234A, 234B, 234C ]

Harish Kumar Gupta v. CCIT (2018) 404 ITR 590/163 DTR 260 / 301 CTR 354 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Recorded reason was 31 st March 2010 where as notice u/s 148 was issued on 30 th March 2010 -Recording of reasons before issue of notice is mandatory hence Reassessment was held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 302 / 301 CTR 38 (Bom) (HC)

S. 139 : Return of income -Delay due to crashing of computer system – Application which was filed for condonation of delay was rejected, after six years of filing of petition was held to be not justified -CIT was directed to condone the delay and hear the matter expeditiously with the observation that delay in disposing the application after six years of filing of the petition has to be viewed seriously while rendering substantial justice to parties . [ S.119(2)(b) ]

PDS Logistics International (P) Ltd. v CCIT (2018) 164 DTR 222/ 256 Taxman 167 /304 CTR 996/ ( 2019) 414 ITR 527 (Karn) (HC)

S.139:Return of Income- Delay of five months due to illness of Auditor however details of illness and any proof of doctor’s prescription was not given- Delay was not condoned- Discipline on time limits regarding filing of returns had to be complied and respected, unless compelling and good reasons were shown and established for grant of extension of time . [ S.80IB ,119]

B.U. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Associates v. CBDT (2018) 164 DTR 201/ 255 Taxman 60/ 302 CTR 472 (Delhi)( HC)

S.92C: Transfer pricing -Arms’ length price- Functionally different -Exclusion of six comparables by the Tribunal by the Tribunal was held to be justified .

PCIT v. Evalueserve Sez (Gurgaon) (P) Ltd. (2018) 164 DTR 297/302 CTR 172 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits -20% expenditure -Purchase of land as stock in trade -Villagers paid the amount in cash in the absence of banking facilities deletion of addition was held to be justified [ R.6DD(h)]

CIT v. Ace India Abodes Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 118 (Raj)(HC)