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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Directions-ITAT should take appropriate steps and expedite hearing in old appeals.

Nokia Solutions and Networks Italia Spa v. DDIT (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 147 : Reassessment –Non disclosure of receipt- Capital gains- Sale of shares- Long term – STT paid -The attempt of further verification would amount to rowing inquiry- Reassessment is bad in law. [S 2(29A, 10(38) ,115JB, .143(1), 148]

Swastic Safe Deposit and Investment Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2019)265 Taxman 164/(2020) 312 CTR 389/ 185 DTR 156 (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.orgEdditorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ACIT v. Swastik Safe Deposit and Investments Ltd ( 2020) 118 taxmann.com 94/ 273 Taxman 89 (SC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-If a notice is issued but is returned unserved by the postal authorities and thereafter no effort is made to serve another notice before the deadline, it shall be deemed to be a case of “non-service” and the assessment order will have to be quashed. [ [S.292BB, R.127, General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 27 ]

Anil kisanlal Marda v. ITO ( 2019) 177 ITD 749 /182 DTR 153 / 201 TTJ 100(Pune)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-cannot determine The ALP at nil on an ad-hoc basis-If an authority like the RBI or Commerce Ministry has approved the rate of royalty, it carries persuasive value that the rate is at ALP.

ACIT v. Netafim Irrigation India Pvt. Ltd. ( 2020) 185 DTR 30(Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus capital gains from penny stocks-Mere allegation is not sufficient–No action from SBI–Capital gains cannot be assessed as cash credits. [S. 45]

Deepak Nagar v. DCIT (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 68 : Cash credits–Non–Resident–I Not an ordinary resident -if the assessee is non–resident amount found deposited in a foreign bank is not taxable in India either u/s 68 or u/s 69 of the Act. Period of 182 days to be considered for calculating residential status of a person migrated to Foreign Country [S. 6(6), 69]

PCIT v. Binod Kumar Singh ( 2019) 178 DTR 49 / 264 Taxman 335/ 310 CTR 243 /( 2020) 423 ITR 175 (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 56 : Income from other sources–Valuation-start-up-Assessee has the option under Rule 11UA(2) to determine the FMV by either the ‘DCF Method’ or the ‘NAV Method’-The AO has no jurisdiction to tinker with the valuation and to substitute his own value or to reject the valuation. [S. 56(2)(viib),,R.11UA(2)]

Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd. v. ITO ( 2019) 200 TTJ 459/ 180 DTR 65/ 177 ITD 809 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.orgEditorial , Affirmed in PCIT v. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 433 ITR 82/ 199 DTR 345/ 320 CTR 381 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 43(5) : Speculative transaction-Non–banking financial company- Trading in shares and securities-Loss incurred as a result of trading in shares–cannot be set off against the business of futures and options as it did not constitute profits and gains of a speculative business. Statement by assessee before Assessing Officer that share trading was its sole business during the year – Bond by admission – Interpretation- Intention of legislature to be seen . [S. 73, 143 (3( ]

Snowtex Investment Ltd. v. PCIT (SC)(2019) 414 ITR 227/ 265 Taxman 3 / 308 CTR 665/ 178 DTR 89 (SC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial: Judgment from , PCIT v. Snowtex Investment Ltd ( 2017) 87 taxmann.com 356 ( Cal) (HC)

S. 40A(9) : Expenses or payments not deductible-Contributions to unapproved and unrecognized funds–Held to be allowable if they are genuine in nature. [ S.36(1) (iv), 36(1)(iva) 36(1)(v) ]

PCIT v. State Bank of India ( 2019) 181 DTR 275 / ( 2020) 420 ITR 376/314 CTR 542 (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 271BA : Penalty-Failure to furnish reports-International transaction-Transfer pricing–Report was filed in the course of assessment proceedings–Failed to up load the form on e. portal – Ignorance or oversight–Bona fide mistake -Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92CA(3), 92E, 273B]

Shree Ram Dass Rice & General Mills v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 748 (Chd.)(Trib.)