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. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-Permanent establishment-No management activity was conducted in India-There was no fixed place of Permanent establishment-No business connection question of estimated income did not arise—Not liable to deduct tax at source or interest -DTAA-India–South Korea. [S. 234A, 234B, Art. 5, 7]
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2018) 170 DTR 85 / 64 ITR 99 / 193 TTJ 769 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Disallowance cannot made as without bringing basic fact that expenditure actually incurred to earn exempt income- Matter remanded to the AO. [ R.8D( 2) (ii) ]
Oricon Enterprises Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 231/ 67 ITR 433 (Mum) (Trib.)
S.45: Capital gains- Exchange -Slump sale -A transaction by which an undertaking is transferred in consideration of the allottment of shares is an “exchange” and not a “sale”. The fact that the agreement refers to the parties as “seller” and “purchaser” is irrelevant. S. 2(42C) and S. 50B apply only to “sale” and not to “exchange”. As there is no estoppel against a statute, an assessee is entitled to raise the claim regarding non-taxability at any stage of the proceedings [ S.2(42C), 50B ]
Oricon Enterprises Limited v. ACIT(2018) 171 ITD 231/ 67 ITR 433 ( Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org
S.271(1) (c) : Penalty concealment – Specific charge -concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income –Issue which was not raised in original proceedings cannot be raised in remand proceedings. [ S.254(2) , 271(1)(a), 274 ]
Meena Bajaj (Smt) v. ITO (2018) 167 DTR 89 / 192 TTJ 952/ 63 ITR 35 (SN) (Jaipur )( Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Transfer pricing adjustment– Software development–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92C]
United Health Group Information Services (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 DTR 246 / 192 TTJ 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-capital work in progress- Short term loss-Assessee has sold plant and machinery along with capital WIP, then order passed by AO cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 143(3)]
Titagarh Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 1010 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A, levy of late fee is not valid. [S. 200A]
Sudarshan Goyal v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 22 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)
S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s. 200A, levy of late fee is not valid- Matter remanded. [S. 200A]
State Bank of India v. ITO (TDS) (2018) 195 TTJ 6 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)
S. 221 : Collection and recovery–Penalty-Tax in default –Survey- Reasonable cause -Cash was generated on account of sale of property- Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 133A]
Shivjot Developers & Builders Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 193 TTJ 74 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)b
S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation- Order passed by AO raising demand u/s.201(1) is beyond limit provided in sub-section (3) for quarter Nos.1 to 3 then, AO could be directed to delete demand raised for quarter Nos.1 to 3. and sustained demand for quarter No.4–U/s.201(3) no limit was provided for passing order charging interest u/s 201(1A), hence assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) and said order of AO was upheld – Partly allowed.[S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3)]
Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2018) 165 DTR 88/ 169 ITD 675 / 193 TTJ 404 (Pune) (Trib.)