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. 5 : Scope of total income – Non-resident — Employees of Indian company sent on assignments – Employees residents of those countries and liable to tax on their worldwide income in those countries for period of their assignment income did not accrue in India and not chargeable to tax in India — Indian Company is not liable to deduct tax on salaries paid in India — Once employees returned and became residents Indian Company can give credit for taxes deducted during deputation outside India – Indian company is not liable to deduct tax on split pay and perquisites received in India but accrued outside India. DTAA- India – USA [ S. 2(45) 4, 5(2) 9(1)(ii), 15, 90, 192 , Art.4(1) , 25 ]

Texas Instruments (India) Pvt. Ltd., In Re (2018) 401 ITR 289 / 253 Taxman 509 /162 DTR 305/ 301 CTR 1 (AAR)

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void – Transfer of property by legal heirs of original assessee — Tax recovery officer has no power to declare transfer is void- Department was granted liberty to file a civil suit to declare the sale transaction and sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, null and void. [ S.222, 226 ]

Agasthiya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 288/255 Taxman 247 / 166 DTR 300 / 305 CTR 399(Mad) (HC)

S.271(1)( c):Penalty — Concealment of income — Depreciation -Notice did not show nature of default – Assessee had understood purport and import of notice- Levy of penalty is held to be valid .[ S. 32 , 274 ]

Sundaram Finance Ltd v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 / 170 DTR 8 /304 CTR 846 / 93 taxman.com 250 (Mad) (HC)Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed , Sundaram Finance Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( 2018) 259 Taxman 220 ( SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Exclusion of the deduction allowed u/s 80IB while quantifying the deduction u/s 80HHC – Two views possible – Revision was held to be not valid . [ S.80HH ]

Agasthiya Granite P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 403 ITR 279 (Mad) (HC)

S. 221 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default -Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) -Attachment of bank account and recovery of amount -Recovery of the amount was held to be without following the due process of law -Stay was granted and directed the revenue 85 percent of tax recovered [ S. 156 ]

Sunflower Broking Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 403 ITR 305 (Guj) (HC)

S. 153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search – No satisfaction was recorded sating that how seized material belonged to the assssee. In the absence of any incriminating material , notice was held to ne in valid [ S. 132 ]

CIT v. N. S. Software (FIRM) (2018) 403 ITR 259 / 165 DTR 201 / 302 CTR 136 / 255 Taxman 230(Delhi) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Reassessment —Interest on deposits not disclosed in return — Details were available in the books of account or the balance-sheet or profit and loss account could not absolve the assessee from a true and correct disclosure of material facts necessary for assessment. Explanation 1 to S. 147 is applicable – Reassessment is valid [ S.148 ]

CIT v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 389/ 168 DTR 417 (Ker) (HC)

S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Assessee owning a house on date of transfer is not entitle to benefit under S.54F [ S.45]

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354/ 166 DTR 235 / 255 Taxman 399/ 304 CTR 454 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains – Computation -Difference between market value and consideration declared, burden is on the revenue to prove -Addition was deleted [S. 45,52(1) ]

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354/166 DTR 235/ 255 Taxman 399/ 304 CTR 454 (Delhi) (HC)

S.45:Capital gains — Shares purchased was pledged with bank – Actual date of transfer is when shares were delivered by bank to entity in subsequent assessment year. [ S.48 ]

Arjun Malhotra v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 354/166 DTR 235/ 255 Taxman 399/ 304 CTR 454 (Delhi) (HC)