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. 45: Capital gains- Cash credits- Penny stocks – When the identity and genuineness of transaction is established merely because , the investigation department has alleged that there is a modus operandi of bogus Long term capital gains scheme is not relevant if the same is not substantiated [ S.10(38), 68 ]

Meenu Goel v. ITO( SMC) (Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains-Cash credits- Share capital-Shares were issued at premium- Identity and PAN was furnished addition cannot be made as undisclosed income . [ S. 68, 133(6) ]

DCIT v. Alcon Biosciences P. Ltd( 2018) 164 DTR 193/193 TTJ 1 (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains- Set off of capital loss-Sham transaction”/ “Colourable device”- Sale of shares to son cannot be held to held to be colourable device if the transaction is with in the four corners of law and valid

Madhu Sarda v. ITO (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains -Index cost -Family arrangement- Family settlements entered into bona fide to maintain peace and harmony in the family are valid and binding on the authorities- Consideration received as part of family arrangement cannot be assessed as income from other sources [ S. 48, 49 ,54 ,56 ]

Kunal R. Gupta v. ITO ( SMC) (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains-Penny stocks- Merely because appreciation in value the capital gains cannot be assessed as income from undisclosed sources [ S. 69 ]

PCIT v. Prem Pal Gandhi ( 2018) 401 ITR 253 ( P & H) ( HC)

S. 45: Capital gains — Transfer — Power of attorney was executed in the year 1993 -94 but actual possession was given in the year AY. 2003 -04, capital gain was held to be taxable in the year of handing over of possession . [ S. 27(v), Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.53A ]

Dr. Joao Souza Proenca. v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 105/ 253 Taxman 275 / 301 CTR 653/164 DTR 80 (Bom) (HC) Sara Proenca ( Mrs) v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 105/ 253 Taxman 275/ 301 CTR 653 /164 DTR 80 (Bom) (HC)

S. 45: Capital gains- Search – Additions cannot be made on the basis of statement of third parties, when no incriminating documents were found in the course of search action on the assesse. [ S. 132(4), 158BA ]

CIT v. Prabhati Lal Saini. (2018) 401 ITR 228 (Raj) (HC)

S. 45: Capital gains- Business income – Profit earned on sale of Shares or Units of Mutual Funds was held to be assessable as capital gains .[ S. 28(i) ]

CIT v. Pavitra Commercial Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 66 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 45: Capital gains — Business income –Profit on sale of shares was held to be assessable as capital gains and not as business income [ S. 28(i) ]

CIT v. Tejas J. Amin (2018) 402 ITR 431 (Guj) (HC)

S. 44C : Non-residents – Head office expenditure – Salary paid to expatriates stationed in India working exclusively for business operations In India, provision was held to be not applicable .

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFJ Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 61 ITR 272 (Delhi) (Trib)