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. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay -Employee of society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 – The Employees of society cannot be equated with employees of Central Government and, therefore, applying clause (ii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 3 and treating assessee as assessee-in-default is justified. [ S. 17 ,192. R.3 ]

National Dairy Research Institute v. ACIT (2018) 171 ITD 271 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 194J : Deduction of tax at source – Fee for professional or technical services – Roaming charges paid to other operators for using their network, payment in is not liable to deduct tax at source .

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 196 / 64 ITR 497 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction of tax at source -Trade discount – Discount offered is to be regarded as ‘commission’ -Liable to deduct tax at source .

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 196 / 64 ITR 497 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 147: Reassessment – After expiry of four years – No accommodation entries were found in books of assessee- The AO plainly relied on the information from the investment wing, there was nothing in the reassessment recorded for reopening of assessment – Reassessment is held to be not valid . [ S.148 ]

ACIT v. Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 78 (SN) (Raipur) (Trib.)

S. 145: Method of accounting – Failure to produce the necessary details as asked by the AO-Rejection of the books of accounts is held to be justified .[S.145(3) ]

ACIT v. Origin Express (I) North Pvt. Ltd (2018) 63 ITR 71 (SN) (Delhi)

S. 132(4): Search and Seizure – Statement on oath – Statement was made on oath by the Managing Partner of a firm that the income returned was less than the actual, and which was not retracted in a reasonable period of time, the addition made by the AO of the undisclosed income was sustainable. [ S.132 ]

Alhind Builders v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 6 (SN)(Cochin) ( Trib))

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – An order passed after the search and seizure operation cannot confer jurisdiction to the AO, if particulars of the assessee including its name, status, address, PAN and AO before whom it was originally being assessed were not correctly mentioned and also no opportunity of being heard was given – Such defects cannot be said to be technical in nature and are not curable u/s. 292B of the Act. [ S.292B ]

ACIT v. Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. ((2018) 165 DTR 93 /193 TTJ 256 (Agra ) (Trib.)

S. 80IC: Special category states – Where no investigations or special exercise was done to shown that the amount claimed as deduction was actually incurred, the claim of the assesee could not be disallowed.

ACIT v. Micro Turners (2018) 63 ITR 13 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.153D:Assessment – Search and seizure – The requisite for approval for assessment from JCIT is mechanical and not proper i.e. given without due application of mind, the assessment order is held to be bad in law . [ S.153A]

ACIT v. Shyam Lal Bansal & Ors. (2018) 164 DTR 185 (Jodhpur ) (Trib.)

S. 153A: Assessment – Search- No addition can be made merely on the basis of statement recorded at the time of search without any corroborative evidence found against the assessee. [ S.132(4) ]

Rajiv Gulati v. ACIT (2018) 62 ITR 7 (Delhi) ( Trib.)