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.271(1)( c ): Penalty – Concealment – Undisclosed income surrendered during survey not included in the return- Tax was paid – Bonafide mistake – Deletion of penalty is held to be justified .[S.133A ]
ACIT v .Harbans lal sethi (2018)196 TTJ 23 (UO) /53 CCH 552 ( Jaipur ) (Trib)
S.68: Cash credits –Sale of car-Resale of car-Purchase was not doubted –On resale to from whom the car was purchased- Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.32 ]
ACIT v. Crayons Advertising Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 77 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Royalty –Amount paid by AE for sale of software is not royalty -Right to use copy right –Matter remanded -DTAA-India –Belgium [ S.90 ,Art ,12(3) ]
Agfa Healthcare N.V. v Dy.CIT (2018) 172 DTR 153/196 TTJ 690 ( Mum) (Trib)
S. 271C : Penalty-Failure to deduct at source–It is necessary to establish ‘contumacious conduct’ on the part of the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source for levy of penalty – Penalty was deleted. [S. 194C]
DCIT v Joint Secretary Organizing Committee for Winter Games, 2009 (2018) 196 TTJ 975/54 CCH 84 / 68 ITR 14 (SN)(2019) 173 DTR 122 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 271AAB : Penalty where search has been initiated–Assessee recorded profits from sale of commodities in ‘other documents’ maintained in normal course, which were retrieved during search, penalty could not be levied.[S. 44AA(2), 132]
Dy.CIT v. Manish Agarwala (2018) 167 DTR 369 / 194 TTJ 346 (Kol.)(Trib.)
S. 271AAA : Penalty-If no search has taken place in premises of assessee – All conditions laid down fulfilled–Deletion of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 132, 153C]
DCIT v. Jainco Developers Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 458 / 52 CCH 575 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Preferring incorrect claim by itself will not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and therefore penalty under S.271(1)(c) of the Act, cannot be imposed on the same.
Dy. CIT v. MCML Train Control Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 144 (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 198 : Deduction at source-Tax deducted is income received–Mismatch of receipts- Balance sheet item-Service tax wrongly treated as TDS by AO cannot be considered as income. [Form 26AS]
DCIT v. G.E. Capital Business Process Management Services Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 51 CCH 158(2018) 63 ITR 337 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Payment made to foreign entities for supply of equipment-where no income accrued in India – Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S.5, 9(1)(i), 194C]
DCIT v. Joint Secretary Organizing Committee for Winter Games, 2009 (2018) 196 TTJ 975 / 54 CCH 84 /68 ITR 14 ( SN)/ (2019) 173 DTR 122 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 194C : Deduction at source–Contractors–Sub-Contractor- Contractor has to deduct tax at source on payment made to their sub contractors – Where person fails to deduct tax at source on sum paid to resident or on sum credited to account of resident such person shall not be deemed to be assessee in default in respect of such tax if such resident has furnished his return of income u/s. 139. [S. 40(a)(ia), 139, 201]
DCIT v Joint Secretary Organizing Committee for Winter Games, 2009 (2018) 196 TTJ 975 / 54 CCH 84 / 68 ITR 14 (SN)(2019) 173 DTR 122 (Delhi)(Trib.)