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. 271G : Penalty – Documents – International transaction – Transfer pricing -No adjustment was made – Failure to furnish documents -Filed belatedly – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified [S. 92CA, 273B]
NTT Data Global Delivery Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 162 DTR 132 / 192 TTJ 11 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment–Capital gains not shown in the return–Assessment proceedings agreed to pay the tax as he was unaware of tax on sale of property–No malafide intention–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S.45, 148]
Pankaj Kumar Gupta v ITO (2018) 193 TTJ 45 (UO) (Luck)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital loss was not allowed to be carry forward – With drawn in return filed pursuance of notice u/s 148- Every legal claim which was filed and which was not allowed by Revenue did not automatically lead to levy of penalty. [S.147, 148]
NSE IT Ltd . v. DCIT (2018)168 DTR 137 / 193 TTJ 813 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Cancellation of registration-Not specifying specific charge whether concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Disallowance of part expenses–Expenditure on foreign tour – Foreign travel expenses of trustees-Credit card expenses–Payment to relatives- Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S.10(23C)(vi), 11, 12 , 13(1)(c)]
Maharashtra Academy of Engineering And Educational Research v. ITO (2017) 51 CCH 728 / (2018) 163 DTR 153 / 191 TTJ 784 (Pune) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– AO to restrict disallowance to a certain percentage which was less than entire amount of such bogus purchases—Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 153A]
NKG Infrastructure Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 171 DTR 385 / 196 TTJ 393 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Non-Jurisdictional High Court-Revision is not possible. [S.80IB(10), 115JB]
Neha Home Builders (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 169 DTR 106 / 195 TTJ 506 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Income from house property-Capital gains-Revision order was quashed on the ground that, to justify exercise of power vested by Statute u/s. 263, it was incumbent upon PCIT to demonstrate that at time of investment, property was not a residential property and in terms of Explanation 2(a), PCIT was required to demonstrate that order passed was without making enquiries or investigation. [S. 45, 143(3)]
Meenu Bansal v. PCIT (2018) 54 CCH 352 / 172 DTR 212 / 196 TTJ 788 (Chd.)(Trib.)
S. 244A : Refunds–Interest on refunds–Month-Assessee had paid taxes and such taxes were refunded, assessee was to be paid interest at prescribed rate for every month or part of month comprising period from date of payment of tax to date on which refund was granted. If such period is a fraction of a month, the same shall be deemed to be a full month and the interest shall be calculated for the entire month accordingly. [General Clauses Act. S.3(35)]
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd . v. ACIT ( 2018) 193TTJ 18 (UO) (Jaipur)(Trib.)
S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-Fees levied u/s. 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in intimations made u/s. 200A was directed to be deleted. [S. 200A]
Sonalac Paints & Coatings Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 167 DTR 83 / 194 TTJ 771 (Chd.)(Trib.)/Nagapal Trading Co v .Dy CIT ( 2018) 167 DTR 83/ 194 TTJ 771 (Chd)(Trib)
S. 234C : Interest-Deferment of advance tax-There was no tax due on returned income and hence, no interest could be levied.
Morgan Stanley Investment Management (P) LTD. v. DCIT(2017) 160 DTR 19 (2018) 191 TTJ 365 (Mum.)(Trib.)