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 -Accrual- Mercantile system of accounting -Not liable to be taxed on notional interest on non-performing assets considering the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India [ S. 145 ]

PCIT v. Kutch District Co -op Bank Ltd ( 2018) 94 taxmann.com 298 ( Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ,CIT v.Jamnagar District Co -Operative Bank Ltd ( 2018) 256 Taxman 212 ( SC)

S.145: Method of accounting -Project completion method- Disclusure in the course of survey-Construction business- Income could be taxed only when sale deeds of units sold were registered even though sale consideration have been received earlier from buyer .[S.133A]

CIT v.Happy Home Corporation ( 2018) 256 Taxman 214 ( Guj) (HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , CIT v Happy Home Corporation ( 2019) 261 Taxman 555 ( SC)

S. 150 : Assessment – Order on appeal –Reassessment -Assessment in pursuance of an order of appeal, etc. -Amendment is held to be prospectively -In course of appellate proceedings Commissioner (Appeals) made on observation that issue relating to capital gain earned by assessee might be considered in relevant year, it could not be regarded as definite finding under section 150(1) and, thus, assessment could not be reopened on basis of said observation after expiry of time limit of six years as prescribed in section 149- Order was quashed. [S. 147, 148 , 149]

Pt. Rung Lal Trust v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 419 (Luck)(Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-transfer Accrual-Development agreement-As per terms of development agreement with builder the assessee would not be paid any monetary consideration but would receive built-up residential area on completion of project-Capital gains cannot be taxed on accrual basis in the year of agreement. [S. 2(47)(v), 48]

Aarti Sanjay Kadam (Mrs.) v. ITO (2018) 172 ITD 362 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 43CA : Transfer of assets-other than capital assets-Full value of consideration- stock in trade-Agreement value–Stamp valuation- Provision of S.43CA have been inserted with effect from 1-4-2014 to relevant assessment year 2014-15-Agreement to sell was entered much prior to that date , i.e. in the year 2007 -Provision of S.43CA(4) cannot be applied- Matter remanded to CIT(A) to determine valuation as on 9-4-2007 and if it is higher than the sale consideration, same can be brought to tax in the year under consideration. [S. 50C]

Indexone Tradecone (P) Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2018) 172 ITD 396 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 23 : Income from house property – Annual value – Vacancy allowance- Flat was not in a position to be let out de hors removal of defects and, therefore, benefit of vacancy allowance in respect of period taken for carrying out necessary alterations.[S. 23(1)(c)]

Saif Ali Khan Pataudi v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 345 /195 TTJ 513 / 169 DTR 305 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 23 : Income from house property-Annual value–Stock in trade-Construction completed, Feb 2013-Income cannot be estimated on ground that said property remained unsold and vacant at end of financial year, since there was no possibility to let out property just after its completion. [S. 23(1)(a)]

Raj Landmark (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 172 ITD 339 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 10(23FB) : Venture capital fund-Exemption-Real estate business-Since real estate sector was removed from the negative list with effect from 5-4-2004, much before the assessee came in to existence -Entitle to exemption-Revision order is held to be bad in law. [S. 115U, 263]

Milestone Real Estate Fund v. ACIT (2018) 172 ITD 370 (Mum.)(Trib)

S. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Society running a non profit educational institution- Exemption cannot be denied merely because assessee was simultaneously running profitable hotel, when the exemption was claimed only for educational activities- Matter remanded. [S. 10(23)(iiiab)]

Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology (CIHMCT) v. DCIT (2018) 172 ITD 356 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source–Directors in charge, to show that offence occurred without their knowledge or due diligence exercised by them to prevent commission of offence-Non-issuance of separate notices, does not absolve directors in charge-Order f lower courts acquitting directors is held to be erroneous-Benefit of probation granted to accused directors of assessee and levy of fine. [S. 2(35), 278B]

ITO v. Anil Batra. (2018) 409 ITR 428 (Delhi)(HC)