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 – Arms’ length price – operating profit – liabilities and doubtful debt written back as well as design income and services income form part of operating profit for computing operation profit while calculating OP/OC ratio.
Dy. CIT v. Tetra Pak India (P) Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 48 (UO)( (Pune) Trib.)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price –Jurisdiction of TPO and AO – Held, TPO required to simply determined to the ALP irrespective of the benefits accruing to the assessee – Held, TPO cannot determine the ALP at Nil on the ground that no benefit accrued to the assessee -Held, AO to decide on deductibility of expense u/s 37(1) – Matter set aside. [ S.37(1)]
Dy. CIT v. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd. (2018) 193 TTJ 150 / 64 ITR 392/ 170 ITD 430/ 166 DTR 233 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 90 : Double taxation relief – Permanent Establishment – Assessee, a US company entered into a master franchise agreement with an Indian company for franchise of Dominos Pizza Stores – It provided certain store/consulting services to the Indian Company – Indian company paid store opening fees – assessee was entitled to charge 3 per cent of sales of store of Indian Company and further 3 per cent on sale of their sub-franchise store –Held, profit/loss from the business of Indian company and sub-franchisee belong to them – Held, none of the conditions or clauses of Permanent Establishment ,Article 5 were attracted and therefore, the Indian company did not constitute PE of the assessee in India-DTAA-India- USA.[Art.5 ]
CIT(IT) v. Dominos Pizza International Franchising Inc. (2018) 171 ITD 321/ 193 TTJ 963/ 166 DTR 201 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 79 : Carry forward and set off losses – Change in share holdings – Companies which public are not substantial interested – Amalgamation – Scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court – Held, such scheme approved in public interest and cannot be disturbed by the Department merely because assessee was not eligible for the same u/s 72A – Held, doctrine of acquiescence and estoppel applicable – Held, capital loss and business loss of amalgamating companies available to the amalgamated company [S. 72A]
Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 14 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 74 : Losses – Capital loss– shares sold at meagre value – sale price disbelieved by AO and accordingly, capital loss disallowed – Held, AO did not point out any discrepancy in the sale consideration – Held, AO did not conduct any enquiry in the hands of the purchaser – Held, loss cannot be disallowed.
Electrocast Sales India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 64 ITR 14 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses – losses from non-speculation business can be set off against profit from speculation business . [S. 73]
Edel Commodities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 86 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 68 : Cash credits – Unsecured loans – Assessee furnished confirmation of account, copies of bank statement, acknowledgment of returns and financial statements of the creditors – Held no addition can be made.
Dy. CIT v. Torque Holdings LLP (2018) 66 ITR 63 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house – Exemption cannot be denied on the ground that residential building was used for business purpose [ S.54 ]
Dy. CIT v. Subramanian (A. M.) (2018) 63 ITR 24 (SN.) (Chennai) (Trib.)
S. 45 : Capital gains – business income – Trading in shares – Held, in earlier years the same was assessed as capital gains in scrutiny assessments – Held, period of holding and receipt of dividend were not decisive factors – Held, to be assessed as capital gains. [S.28(i)]
Eastman Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 44C : Non-residents – Head office expenditure – salary paid to expatriates who were stationed in India working exclusively for the business operations of the Indian PE of the assessee – Held allowance and that provision of S.44C is not applicable.
Dy. DIT (IT) v. Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, UFG Ltd. (2018) 61 ITR 272 (Delhi)(Trib.)