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. 22 : Income from house property–letting out property– Assessable as income from house property and not as business income.[S. 28(i)]

Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 266 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Suo moto disallowance which is more than exempt income- No disallowance can be made. [R. 8D]

Unitech Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 176 ITD 266 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 12A : Registration–Trust or institution-Medical relief- Rejection of application for registration merely on the ground that activities envisaged in aims and objects of assessee-society had not been carried out is held to be not valid -Matter remanded. [S.2(15), 12AA]

Anand Isher Amar Charitable Cancer & Multi-Speciality Hospital Society. v. CIT (2019) 176 ITD 424/ 180 DTR 170 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Royalty– Non-resident–Sale of software -Copyrighted products–Not liable to tax as royalty–DTAA-India-Ireland. [Art. 12]

Mentor Graphics Ireland Ltd. v. ACIT(IT) (2019) 69 ITR 247 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India–Non-Resident-Royalty-Computer software-Transfer of copyrighted software-consideration would not amount to ‘royalty’ or fees for ‘included services’ or ‘technical services’-Not taxable in India– Not liable to deduct tax at source-DTAA-India–Sweden.[S.9(1)(i), Art. 12]

Sandvik Tooling Sverige AB v. DCIT (IT) (2019) 176 ITD 390 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 2(ea): Assets-Urban land held as stock–in trade–Shown as investment-Liable to wealth tax- No substantial question of law. [S. 2(ea)(v), 2(m)]

Devineni Avinash.v .PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 28 / 177 DTR 428/ 308 CTR 350(T&AP)(HC) Devineni Lakshmi (Smt.) v. PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 28/ 177 DTR 428 /308 CTR 650 (T&AP)(HC)

S. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Repayment of deposits or Loans-Issuance of notice on 27-11-2014-Passing of final order on 21-9-2016—Barred by limitation. [S. 154, 269T, 271E]

Karnail Singh v. UOI (2019) 412 ITR 305/ 309 CTR 425 / 180 DTR 37(Pat.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Claim for 100 Per Cent. Deduction-Bonafide claim–Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 80IC]

CIT v. Virgo Industries. (2019) 412 ITR 146/ 178 DTR 300 (P&H)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Depreciation-Voluntary withdrawal of claim during course of assessment proceedings- Does not mean that assessee accepted guilt or giving wrong or false explanation-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 32]

B. Loganathan v. ITO (2019) 412 ITR 642/ 180 DTR 272 / 311 CTR 107(Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Merger–Limitation-Merger of assessment order in appellate order—Revision is bad in law- Order of assessment in 2005— Revision in 2009—Barred by limitation-Question regarding limitation can be raised for first time Before High Court. [S.80IB, 153A, 251, 260A]

Skyline Builders v. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 182/ 179 DTR 165 / 309 CTR 415 / 265 Taxman 38 ( Mag.)(Ker.)(HC)