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. 32: Depreciation -Plant and machinery put to use in April 1992 — Depreciation is not allowable for the assessment Year.

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)

S. 17 : Perquisite – Salary-Employees deputed abroad — Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.15,17(2), 192 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 17 : Perquisite – Salary-Employees deputed abroad — Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Liable to deduct tax at source . [ S.15,17(2), 192 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Tribunal remanding the issue of interest expenses and deleting other expenses-– Order of Tribunal is up held – No question of law [S. 254(1) , 260A, R.8D ]

CIT v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 500 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 12 ( St)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Depreciation and other deductions –
-Neither any deduction claimed by assessee for Assessment Years prior to amendment nor exemption granted — Ten years’ relief allowed by later amendment in 2003 —Interpretation- Legislative intent – The intent of the Legislature while it made those amendments was not to curtail the relief to an assessee, who had not availed of double benefit- Matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration. [ S.10A(6) ]

Phoenix Lamps Ltd. v. CIT( 2017) 87 taxmann.com 353 / (2018) 405 ITR 189 (All) (HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed as the Tribunal has passed the final order after the remand CIT v. Phoenix Lamps Ltd ( 2019) 263 Taxman 338 (SC)

S. 10(14) : Special allowance or benefit -Allowance received by employee to cover expenses incurred wholly in performance of duties —Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption. [ S.15, 17 , 192 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Permanent Establishment -Global payment solutions facilitating use of electronic forms of Payment, ie by credit card, instead of cash and cheques -Banks and financial Institutions – There was a fixed place permanent establishment, service permanent establishment and dependent agent permanent establishment-On such attribution of income to the permanent establishment, the tax was required to be withheld at full applicable rate at which the non-resident is subjected to tax in India. Even automatic equipment like server can also create a permanent establishment and there was no requirement of human intervention- DTAA-India -Singapore [ Art. 5, 7, 12 ]

Mastercard Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Singapore, In Re (2018) 406 ITR 43/ 303 CTR 305/ 167 DTR 321 (AAR)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Income or capital- Non-compete Amounts received by assessee under Non-Compete agreement constitute capital receipt- Revenue cannot ignore the specific terms of the agreements and render findings contrary thereto as regards the nature of the income received by the assessee- Form and substance of transaction-Substance of transaction to be considered. [ S.28(i) ]

V. C. Nannapaneni. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 505 / 305 CTR 625 /171 DTR 337(T&AP) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Income or capital — Incentive for sale of Sugar is a capital receipt and hence not chargeable to tax .

CIT v. Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 737 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Kanoria Sugar And General Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 1 ( St)

S. 35:Punishment of advocates for misconduct- Status of Legislator is member of House. Legislator cannot be styled as full time salaried employees – Merely drawing salary or allowances does not result in creation of relationship of employer and employee between government and legislators- Merely because Advocate is elected people’s representative , it does not amount to professional misconduct – In the absence of express provision in Act or Rules , Legislators cannot be debarred from practicing as Advocate [ S.49, Bar Council of India Rules , 1975 R.49, Art. 14, 32 ]

Ashwin Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI AIR 2018 SC 4633