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. 92C : Transfer pricing – (i) If the “arms length‟ principle is satisfied qua the relevant transaction between the assessee and its Indian subsidiary, no further profits can be attributed to the assessee in India even if it was to be held that the latter had a PE in India (ii) If the subsidiary has subsequently entered into an “APA‟ with the CBDT & the FAR analysis and overall functions remain unchanged, the “APA‟ would have a bearing on the ALP of the earlier years.

Celltick Technologies Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2019 ) 109 taxmann.com 334 (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains- Long term capital loss – A reduction of capital results in an “extinguishment of rights” in the shares and constitutes a “transfer‟- The fact that the percentage of shareholding remains unchanged even after the reduction is irrelevant. The loss arising from the cancellation of shares is entitled to indexation and is allowable as a long-term capital loss.[ S. 2(22)(d),2(47),10(34) ,48,49(2),115A, 1150 ]

Carestream Health Inc v. DCIT (Mim)(Trib), www.itatonilne.org

S. 43B : Certain deductions on actual payment – The credit of Excise Duty earned under MODVAT scheme is not sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess – unutilised credit under MODVAT scheme does not qualify for deduction – Sales tax paid by the appellant was debited to a separate account titled ‘Sales Tax recoverable account’ and is liable for disallowance .[S. 145 ]

Maruti Suzuki India India Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 421 ITR 510/ 114 taxmann.com 129 / 270 Taxman 75/186 DTR 353 / 313 CTR 113 (SC) www.itatonline.org Editorial: Order in Maruti Udyog Ltd v . CIT ( 2017) 88 taxmann.com 98 /(2018) 253 Taxman 60/ 406 ITR 562 /161 DTR 1/ 308 CTR 682(Delhi) (HC) is affirmed .

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Accommodation entries – Restricting the disallowances at 5% of alleged bogus purchases is held to be justified – Entire purchases cannot be disallowed . [ S. 37(1),144 ]

PCIT v. Rishabhdev Tachnocable Ltd (2020) 424 ITR 338 /187 DTR 473 (Bom) (HC). www.itatonline .org

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Provision for expenses – Revision is held to be not valid [ S.37(1) ]

Khetawat Properties Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 180 ITD 535 / 189 DTR 346/ 205 TTJ 412 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Enhancement – CIT (A) cannot enhance a new source of income to tax which was not considered by assessee. [ S.68, 147, 251(2), 263 ]

Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 558/187 DTR 259/ 204 TTJ 426 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax – Book profit – Retrospective amendment to provision of S. 115JB- Not liable to pay interest .[ S.115JB ]

ACIT v. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) 180 ITD 505 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Liabilities of gratuity and leave encashment -Notes appended to accounts- Should be adjusted while computing book profit- Adjustment in respect of prior period items comprising of impact of lease rent equalization and gratuity expenses of earlier years should be made, while computing book profit- Exempt income – Disallowance is not considered while computing book profit- Dividend income is exempt ,should be excluded in computing book profit .[ S. 10(34 )14A, 145 , R.8D AS. 15 ]

Bata India Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 464 (Kol) (Trib.)|

S. 115JB : Book profit – Sales tax subsidy- Capital in nature – A receipt exempt from tax under Income tax law, cannot be considered for purpose of computation of book profit- Sales tax subsidy received by assessee being capital in nature is to be reduced from book profit [ S.4, 28(i) ]

ACIT v. JSW Steel Ltd. (2020) 180 ITD 505 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 92B : Transfer pricing – Safe Harbour Rules (5 per cent variation) – No TP adjustment could be made where arm’s length value of transactions as computed by TPO was within permitted range of variation of +/- 5 per cent of actual value of transaction. [ S.92C ]

Bata India Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 464 (Kol) (Trib.)