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.37(1):Business expenditure-Capital or revenue – Software -Expenditure incurred on acquiring licences to use software which did not confer any enduring benefit hence allowable as revenue expenditure.

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 24/ 168 DTR 345 / 304 CTR 981 (Delhi)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Amount paid to cane growers in excess of price determined in Sugarcane Control order, to be allowed as deduction.

CIT v. Aruna Sunrise Hotels Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 43 (Mad)( HC)

S.32:Depreciation-Printer being a part of computer, is eligible for depreciation at higher rate of 60 per cent.

CIT v. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (2018)406 ITR 406/ 256 Taxman 32 (Mad)( HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income – Co –operative society- Banking business- Accrual- Interest on doubtful debts or Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) without such interest being actually received or credited in profit & loss account of assessee- Not required to pay tax on interest income .[ S.43D ]

CIT (A) v. Bijapur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd (2018) 256 Taxman 51 (Karn)( HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Bijapur District Central Co-Opertaibe Bank Ltd ( 2019) 260 Taxman 297 (SC)

S. 271AAB:Penalty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012- Amount offered was not undisclosed income -Levy of penalty was held to be not justified .[ S.132 ]

DCIT v. Subhas Chandra Agarwala and Sons (HUF) (2018) 65 ITR 18 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S.271(1) (c ):Penalty — Concealment- Quantum appeal the relief was allowed -Levy of penalty was held to be not valid .

Paramjit Singh v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 244 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Share application money -No finding that assessee’s unaccounted money routed through circuitous manner — Assessment order accepting share capital/share premium is not prejudicial to interests of revenue — No Adverse finding or comment by Commissioner as why work-in-progress shown by assessee at nil is not correct or requires further inquiry or verification — Revision was held to be not valid [ S.68 , 145 ]

Vidya Prakashan Mandir P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 65 ITR 26/ 165 DTR 153 / 194 TTJ 868(Delhi) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment – No return was filed before issue of notice – Un explained deposit in the Bank – Specific information with the AO – Reassessment is held to be valid [ S.148 ]

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v ITO ( 2018) 65 ITR 194/ 194 TTJ 825 /( 2019) 174 DTR 25(Jaipur) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment – Capital gains on sale of land – Sale executed and registered 12-1-2007 – Escapement of capital gains in AY. 2007 -08 -Reopening of assessment for the AY .2006 -07- No nexus between material and the formation of prima facie belief that income had escaped taxation for the AY. 2006 -07 – Reassessment is held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v ITO ( 2018) 65 ITR 194/ 194 TTJ 825/(2019) 174 DTR 25 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Bogus purchases- No tangible material before the AO to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment – Reassessment was held to be not valid . Notice based on information from Sales Tax Department that assessee obtained accommodation entries-Recorded reasons have a live link with formation of belief – Failure to disclose primary facts – Reassessment was held to be valid – Matter was remanded to the AO to give fair opportunity of hearing and opportunity of cross examination [ S.148 ]

Ganesh J. Modi v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 30 (Mum) (Trib)