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

Interpretation – Binding precedent -. Interpretations given by High Courts and Tribunals cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officers

Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. v. CIT( 2018) 404 ITR 564/166 DTR 379 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Wealth –tax Act, 1957 –Finance Act 1983
S. 40(3) :Levy of wealth tax on land and building which is not used for the purpose of business was held to be valid – Parliament has legislative competence to tax land and buildings which are in List-II of the 7th Schedule and whether the classification of “companies in which the public are not substantially interested” is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . [ Art 14 ]

Indian Express Newspapers(Bom) (P) Ltd. v. IAC ( 2018) 164 DTR 233/ 302 CTR 33 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S. 7:Net Wealth — Vehicle funded by and maintained on behalf of Principal foreign company was held to be not included in net Wealth of Assessee -Principle of consistency was followed .[S.2(m) ]

DIT Wealth-Tax v. Hersh W. Chadha (2018) 401 ITR 502/165 DTR 52/ 302 CTR 245 (Delhi) (HC)

Wealth-tax Act, 1957

S. 2(ea): Valuation of asset – Immoveable property – Lessee sub-leasing property for higher rent and receiving deposit- Value Of Property declared by assessee was correct fair market value as on the relevant valuation date — Amount paid by lessee was not assessable as income of assesse. [ S. 5, 7 , Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 ]

DIT Wealth-Tax v. Hersh W. Chadha (2018) 401 ITR 502/165 DTR 52/ 302 CTR 245 (Delhi) (HC)

Wealth-tax Act, 1957
S.2(ea):Assets- Remand to Assessing Officer by Tribunal on question of valuation, issue stating that the lands not includible in net wealth cannot be raised , matter remanded . [ S.24(5) ]

Lalit Suri Through Legal Representative Jyotsna Suri v. CWT (2018) 402 ITR 104 /166 DTR 84/ 305 CTR 942 (Delhi) (HC) / Jyotsna Suri v. CWT (2018) 402 ITR 104/166 DTR 84 / 305 CTR 942 (Delhi) (HC)

Interest-Tax Act, 1974

S. 2(5B)( vi): Financial Company — Finance Charges such as interest received from hire purchase transactions and other Interest was held to chargeable to tax .[ S.8(2) ]

CIT v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 25 (Ker) (HC)

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS)

S. 183: Payment of tax – Failure to pay third instalment – Rejection of application was held to be justified- Old age and ill health or forgetfulness to make payment and the assesse was 70 years age cannot be the ground to extension of time for payment of third instalment . [ S. 119(2) ]

Siddharth Rastogi v. CBDT (2018) 402 ITR 17/ 301 CTR 545 / 163 DTR 449 (Delhi) (HC) Dal Chandra Rastogi v. CBDT (2018) 402 ITR 17/ 301 CTR 545 / 163 DTR 449 (Delhi) (HC) Meena Rastogi v CBDT ( 2018) 404 ITR 97/301 CTR 548 / 163 DTR 452( Delhi) (HC) Editoraial: Supreme Court permitted the Asseseee to dposit tax under Income Dclartion Schme belatedly subject to interest @ 12 % .

Gift Tax Act, 1958
S. 16: Reassessment-Deemed Gift —No conclusive finding rendered by Appellate Tribunal on question of notional or deemed gift — Order was set aside [ S. 4(1)(a) ]

CGT v. Jindal Equipment Leasing. (2018) 402 ITR 184 (Delhi) (HC) CGT v. Stainless Investments Ltd (2018) 402 ITR 184 (Delhi) (HC) CIT v. Mansarover Investment Ltd (2018) 402 ITR 184 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Compounding of offences – Guidelines on compounding of offenses dated 23.12.2014 prescribing eligibility conditions and the formula for calculating the compounding fee are valid or unreasonable [ S. 276 ,277, 278 ]

Vikram Singh v. UOI( 2018) 401 ITR 307 / 163 DTR 55 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions – Compounding Of Offences — Guidelines fixing compounding fees was held to be valid Application For Compounding twenty years after assessment order and after framing of criminal charges — Determination of compounding fees was held to be valid . Assessee was directed to pay cost of Rs 50000 /.

Vikram Singh v. UOI (2018) 401 ITR 307 /163 DTR 55/ 301 CTR 439 / 253 Taxman 356 (Delhi) (HC)