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. 40A(3) :Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits – Evidence in the form of bills etc. was not produced. Disallowance was confirmed . [ R.6DD(h) ,(j )]

Ellora Paper Mills Ltd. v CIT (2018) 163 DTR 42 / 301 CTR 252 (Bom)( HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Capital or revenue-Fees paid for Licence to use copy right was held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Mobisoft Tele Solutions (P) LTD. (P) LTD. (2018)404 ITR 203/ 163 DTR 289 / 301 CTR 582/90 taxmann.com 383 (P&H) (HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Invested own money therefore no disallowance of interest can be made in respect of borrowed funds [S. 36(1)(iii), R.8D ]

CIT v. Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 496/161 DTR 170 / 300 CTR 98 (Raj)(HC)

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Cancellation notice having been issued on 6.03.2012, it did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. Matter was remanded to Tribunal to decide the issue on merits .[ S.2(15)]

ACIT v. Agra Development Authority (2018) 407 ITR 562 / 163 DTR 121/ 302 CTR 308 (All)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Compensation received for loss of source of income and non competition fee is held to be capital receipts [ S.17(3), 28(va), Prior to Amendment, 2016 wef 1-04-2107 ]

CIT v. Satya Sheel Khosla. (2018) 164 DTR 293/ 305 CTR 534 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Trade advances which were in nature of commercial transactions cannot be assessed as deemed dividend

CIT v. Deepak Vegpro (P) Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 496/ 161 DTR 170 / 300 CTR 98 (Raj)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Additional ground – Omission to strike off the relevant clause in the notice issued under section 271 r/w. section 271(1)(c) is a legal issue hence require to be admitted .No striking of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of AO and no clear and crystalised charge has been conveyed to the assesse under S.271(1)(c), which has to be met by it. Proceedings suffer from non-compliance with principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty imposed was deleted .[ S.254(1) .

Autoriders India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 376/161 DTR 217 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Claim for deduction of rental payments without deducting tax at source-Explanation stating that due to over sight was not accepted –Penalty was confirmed .

Airen Metals (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 609/163 DTR 201 (Jaipur.)( Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment – Bogus purchases- Levy of penalty was held to be not justified .

Balaji Motion Pictures Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 641 /61 ITR 421 / 162 DTR 105(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 249 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Form of appeal and limitation – E-filing of appeal is not applicable to order passed prior to 1-3-2016 [ S.246A ]

Ashraf Aziz Kasmani v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 230/ 66 ITR 301 (Mum) (Trib.)