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. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price –It would be impossible to find comparable with all similarities including the similarity of turnover- A functionally similar company cannot be excluded as comparable only on ground that company had a higher turnover .

CIT v Same Deutz-Fahr India (P) Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 345/163 DTR 456 /301 CTR 591/ 253 Taxman 32 (Mad) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects- Project containing commercial units to the extent permitted by rules and regulation is allowable as deduction. Tribunal is justified in allowing partial deduction only in respect of building completed.

CIT v. Makwana Brothers & Co. (HWP) (2018) 161 DTR 289 (Bom) (HC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects -Commencement of construction before 1-10-1998- If either the development or the construction starts before the specified date, the benefit of deduction is not allowable . [ S.80IA(5)]

CIT v Shipra Estate Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 332 /301 CTR 34 (All) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application – The assessees has filed balance sheet confirmation etc, addition cannot be made merely on suspicion , if AO has any doubt he should make enquiry with lenders bank etc .

CIT v Russian Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 300 CTR 501 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Claridges Hotels ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 300 CTR 501 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 37 (1) : Business expenditure – Provision for deficiency in service – Ascertained liability – Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation -Addition cannot be made. [ S.145 ]

CIT v Narinderjit Singh (2018) 161 DTR 200 / 300 CTR 217 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Trade discount – Agents’ deposit – Regular business transactions cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

CIT v Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 595/ 162 DTR 281/ 301 CTR 552/ 253 Taxman 292 (Ker) ( HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Statement u/s 132(4) can be used against the assessee only if the statement has relevance to any incriminating document or material found during course of search -Block assessment is held to be bad in law.[ S. 132(4) ]

Promain Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 188 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application-Investors have complied with details u/s 133(6) and the summons was not issued to the investors though request was made by the assessee, addition was held to be not justified . [ S. 131,133(6) ]

Prinku landfin (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.147: Reassessment -In the notice u/s 143(2) earlier assessment year is mentioned , the said notice cannot be said to be in valid [ S.143(2), 148 ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.69: Unexplained investments –Family settlement- Sale deed showed cash consideration was paid therefore addition as unexplained investment was held to be justified .

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)