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. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income –Disallowances can be made only where the AO recorded his satisfaction as to how the claim of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn exempt income is incorrect. [R. 8D]
ACIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.(2018) 63 ITR 433 (Bang)(Trib.)
S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income –Provision would not apply where no exempt income was received or receivable during relevant previous year by assessee. [R. 8D ]
ACIT v. Dish TV India Ltd. (2018) 194 TTJ 897/ 169 DTR 253 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 5 : Scope of total income -Accrual- Interest on Government securities which has become due and payable alone can be considered as accrued and taxable. [S. 28(i), 145]
ACIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.(2018) 63 ITR 433 (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 4 : Charge of Income tax – Capital or revenue -Subsidy received from Government for setting up of an industry in the backward area was to be treated as a capital receipt.
ACIT v. Pasadensa Foods Ltd. (2018) 163 DTR 243 / 192 TTJ 645 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Compensation received by the assesse in lieu of withdrawal of criminal complaint filed against a person for impersonation and forging Assessee’s signature on a document relating to sale of shares of a company is not taxable as income. [S. 2(24)]
ACIT v. Jackie Shroff(2018) 167 DTR 133 / 172 ITD 425 / 194 TTJ 760 (Mum Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains- Cost of acquisition- In case of inadvertent mistake in computation of income by assessee, no penalty can be imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [ S.45 ]
DCIT v. Shahrukh Khan (2018) 66 ITR 168 / 194 TTJ 777 / 53 CCH 055/ 172 DTR 73 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment –Notional income- Where addition/disallowance made by AO is not free from doubts and debates, no penalty can be imposed.
DCIT v .Shahrukh Khan (2018) 66 ITR 168 / 194 TTJ 777 / 53 CCH 055/ 172 DTR 73 (Mum)(Trib.)
S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal –Oral ground – Jurisdiction- Where there being no occasion for CIT(A) to decide a particular issue against assesse, assesse cannot support the impugned order under rule 27 on that ground. [S.271(1) (c ), R.27]
Dy.CIT v. Shahrukh Khan (2018) 66 ITR 168 / 194 TTJ 777 / 53 CCH 055/ 172 DTR 73(Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 147 : Reassessment – Within four years – Reopening of assessment based only on the change of opinion on the existing material cannot be sustained in absence of any new tangible material.
Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 52 CCH 0631/ 66 ITR 354 (Hyd.)(Trib.)
S. 145 : Method of accounting – If AO accepted books of accounts in preceding and subsequent years – rejection of books based on hypothetical calculations was not justified.
Dy.CIT v. Prakul Luthra v. (2018) 53 CCH 607/ 66 ITR 672 (Delhi)(Trib.)