S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Not earned any tax-exempt during the relevant assessment year – Mixed funds – No disallowance can be made .[ S.80D (2)(ii) ]
Dy.CIT v JSW Ltd ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 565 79 ITR 585 / 183 ITD 148/ 189 DTR 15/205 TTJ 1 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties Order –Limitation – Pronouncement – The period of 90 days should be computed by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown due to Covid-19 was in force. [ITATR. 34(5) ]
Dy.CIT v JSW Ltd ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 565 79 ITR 585 / 183 ITD 148/ 189 DTR 15/ 205 TTJ 1 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.orgIndian Partnership Act, 1932
S.37 : Rights of outgoing partner in certain cases to share subsequent profits – Retirement – Dissolution -Mode of settlement of accounts – When there are only two partners and one has agreed to retire, then the retirement amounts to dissolution of the firm . [ S.48 ]
There is a clear distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership firm’. On retirement of the partner, the reconstituted firm continues and the retiring partner is to be paid his dues in terms of Section 37 of the Partnership Act. In case of dissolution, accounts have to be settled and distributed as per the mode prescribed in Section 48 of the Partnership Act. When the partners agree to dissolve a partnership, it is a case of dissolution and not retirement A partnership firm must have at least two partners. When there are only two partners and one has agreed to retire, then the retirement amounts to dissolution of the firm . Accounts to be settled as it amounts to dissolution of firm . Trial Court was directed to pass the final decree in accordance with law .(CANOS. 6659 -6660 of 2010 dt 26 -5- 2020 ) Guru Nanak Industries v Amar Singh , Through LRS ( SC) www.itatonline.org .Indian Contract Act , 1872 .
S.56 : Agreement to do impossible Act – An agreement to do an impossible Act is void -Doctrine of “Force Majeure” & “Frustration of Contract” – The effect of the doctrine of frustration is that it discharges all the parties from future obligations . [ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .S 37 ]
South East Asia Marine v Oil India Ltd . AIR 2020 SC 2323; (2020) 5 SCC 164; MANU/SC/0441/2020 (SC. AIR 2020 SC 2323; (2020) 5 SCC 164; MANU/SC/0441/2020 (SC(SC) www.itatonline.prgS. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Video conferencing – Attachment of bank account lifted and stay against coercive recovery granted. [ S.226 (3) ]
Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd v ACIT ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 376 (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Editorial : ITAT Mumbai created history by hearing a stay petition, on humane ground during period of complete lockdown, through video conferencing from home offices of Coram Members.S.241A: Refund- Withholding of refund in certain cases – Satisfaction to be recorded by the AO – The withholding of refund requires the previous approval of the PCIT with reasons to be recorded in writing.- When assessment pursuant to notice under section 143(2) was pending and likelihood of substantial demands upon assessee after completion of scrutiny could not be ruled out, refund claim could not be allowed – When no action is initiated the Court directed the revenue to grant the refunds with in four weeks . [ S.143(1) 143(2) 245 ]
Vodafone Idea Ltd ( Earlier Known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd) v .ACIT (2020)424 ITR 664/ 189 DTR 26/ 315 CTR 1 / 273 Taxman 91 / 116 taxmann.com 393 ( SC) www.itatonline.org Editorial : Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd v ACIT ( 2018) 100 taxmann.com 310 / ( 2019) 260 Taxman 417 (Delhi) (HC ) is affirmed .S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Recovery of demand-Gross suppression and misstatement – Sought adjournment before CIT (A) without seeking modification of the Court’s order – Writ dismissed with cost of Rs 5 lakh. [ S.226(3) , Art , 226 ]
Indus Towers Ltd v ACIT ( Delhi ) (HC ) www.itatonline.org Editorial : The Supreme Court has stayed recovery of the demand SLP no 9011 /2020 dt 6-03 2020 Indus Towers Ltd v ACIT (SC)S. 199 : Deduction at source – Credit for tax deducted – Deducutor has deducted the tax at source though failed to deposit the tax with the Govt dedcutee cannot be made to suffer- Credit for the tax deducted at source has to be allowed in the hands of the deductee irrespective of whether the same has been deposited by the deductor to the credit of the Central Government or not [ S.205 ]
Aricent Technologies Holdings Ltd v ACIT ( Delhi) (Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 195 :Deduction at source – Non-resident – The payment by an Indian company to a foreign celebrity (Nicholas Cage) for an appearance by him in Dubai, UAE, in a product launch event for promoting the business of the assessee in India, is taxable as arising from a “business connection” and also under Article 23(1) of Inda-USA tax treaty – Liable to deduct tax at source – DTAA- India -USA [ S.5(2)(b) ,9(1), 115BBA,201, Art .23(1) ]
Volkswagen Finance Pvt Ltd v. ITO( 2020)115 taxmann.com 386 (Mum.)(Trib.); www.itatonline.orgS. 194E : Deduction at source – Non-resident – Sport person – Sports association – liable to deduct tax at source -The obligation to deduct tax is not affected by the DTAA. [ S. 9(1) ,115BBA ]
PILCOM v CIT ( 2020) 425 ITR 312 / 188 DTR 1/ 314 CTR 39/ 116 taxmann.com 394 / 271 Taxman 200( SC) www.itatonline.org Editorial : PILCOM v CIT (2011) 198 Taxman 555 /355 ITR 147/238 CTR 387 ( Cal) (HC ) is affirmed .