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. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income–Investments out of own funds and free reserves not liable for disallowance- 2% of dividend income was disallowed towards administrative expenses. [R. 8D]
DCIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 19 (SN) (Raipur) (Trib)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Carbon credit -Capital or revenue -Additional ground -Receipt from sale of carbon credit is capital receipt-Not taxable as income – Additional ground was admitted and remanded the matter for verification. [S. 2(24), 80IA(4), 115BBG, 254(1)]
DCIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd. (2018) 68 ITR 19(SN) (Raipur)(Trib.)
S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions–Companies–Failure to furnish return would not come in way of criminal prosecution-Sanction–Commissioner empowered to sou moto initiate penalty even if assessing authority is Additional Commissioner-Return of income–Failure to furnish–Omission on part of the AO to impose penalty by itself does not mean default is not willful-Return of Income–Primary responsibility of furnishing return is of Managing Director–Directors also equally responsible for furnishing return. [S.139, 140, 271F, 278B, 279]
Rakshit Jain v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 401 / 305 CTR 577 / 103 CCH 64 (Delhi)(HC) Shrawan Gupta v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 401/ 305 CTR 577 / 103 CCH 64 (Delhi)(HC)/MGF Development Ltd v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 401/ 305 CTR 577 (Delhi)( HC) .
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Writing off capital work in progress- Penalty not sustainable on disallowance of assessee’s claim of loss–Legislature does not intend to penalize every person whose claim is disallowed.
PCIT v. Samtel India Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 322 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Not mentioning the specific charge -Ground mentioned in show cause notice would not satisfy requirement of law for levying penalty as charges levied in the notice were not specific-Deletion of penalty is held to be valid. [S. 132, 139, 153A]
PCIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia (2018) 168 DTR 327 / 304 CTR 103 / 102 CCH 303 (MP.)(HC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–On excessive deduction and alleged excess stock-Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [S. 10B]
PCIT v. Deccan Mining Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 168 DTR 161 / 102 CCH 315 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Application–Rejection of an application on the ground that the income disclosed belonged to another entity was a finding of fact and did not call for interference by the High Court. [S.245C, Art. 226]
Vishwa Nath Gupta v. PCIT (2018) 82 taxmann.com 382 / 304 CTR 673 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Addition was made by extrapolating the actual production vis a vis the reported production of the current year to the preceding years-Addition on the grounds of sufficient evidence of unaccounted production confirmed-Entire process to be seen for considering 80IB deduction-Writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the issue was very factual and there being no perversity. [S. 132, 153A, 80IB, 245D(4), Art. 226 ]
Sumilon Industries Ltd. v. ITSC (2018) 168 DTR 97 / 99 CCH 112 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission – If Settlement Commission is unable to form a decisive opinion to give a definitive finding for rejection of settlement application after initial and preliminary hearing, proceeding to second stage, in which more in-depth scrutiny and verification takes place is the only option- Order of Settlement Commission rejecting the petition was set aside and directed to decide on merits. [S. 132, 245C(1), 245D(2)(C)]
R.T. Industries v. ITSC (2018) 98 taxmann.com 236 / 170 DTR 281 / 305 CTR 1 / 103 CCH 4 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 234B : Interest–Advance tax–Refund of warehousing charges paid on seized goods by department was rejected–Cannot claim interest from date when goods were auctioned but entitled to claim interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order passed by the settlement commission till actual payment. [S. 132]
Pooran Sugar Works v. UOI (2018) 170 DTR 113 / 304 CTR 793 / 103 CCH 54 (All.)(HC)