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. 2(15) : Charitable purpose – Medical reliefs- charging nominal fee for providing services exemption cannot be denied , proviso is held to be not applicable [ [S.11, 12AA ]

ITO v. Escorts Cardiac Disease Hospital Society. (2018) 173 ITD 406/( 2019) 197 TTJ 708/ 174 DTR 321 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 2(14)(iii)(b) : Capital asset-Agricultural land- 8KM- Distance from Municipal limits to area in which land is situated is to be considered and not distance between particular land and municipal limit-Matter remanded. [S.45, 54F]

Rakesh Garg v. ITO (2018) 173 ITD 302/( 2019) 197 TTJ 632 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S.45: Capital gains – Business income – Merely holding shares for a short period will not convert capital gain into business income-.This would be contrary to be legislative mandate which itself provides that investment held for less than 12 months is to be termed as short term capital gain-If the assessee has two portfolios, one for “Investment” and other for “Trading” and if the investments are out of own funds and not borrowed funds, the gains have to be assessed as short term capital gains [ S.28 (i)]

CIT v. Viksit Engineering Ltd (2018) 100 taxmann.com 436 (Bom.)(HC) . www.itatonline.org

S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information -New accountant of assessee ignorant of statutory provisions of tax deduction at source-Reasonable cause- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 272A(2)(k), 273B]

Investascent Wealth Advisors Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 604 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment—So long as the income escaped assessment for which reasons were recorded has been assessed, the Assessing Officer has power to include other incomes which has escaped assessment and which comes to his knowledge in the course of the proceedings under this section. Disallowance of commission is held to be justified. [S. 37(1), 80IB]

Sun Infraa v. DCIT(2018) 65 ITR 687 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price—Comparables-Providing back office support services-Followed rule of consistency -Different business hence cannot be comparable. [S. 92CA ]

Exxon Mobil Company India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 583 /196 TTJ 1070 / 97 taxmann.com 43 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources–Fair market value–Shares price was determined as per R.11UA Book value of assets and liabilities declared by company at Rs 5 per share-AO determined at Rs.45.72 per share and made addition of Rs 40.72 per share as income from other sources- Tribunal held that addition made by the AO was held to be not justified. [S. 56(2)(viia), R.11UA]

Minda S M Technocast P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 84 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-When a specific request is made by the assessee to refer the matter to valuation officer, it was statutory duty laid down upon the Assessing Officer to obtain the valuation report by referring the matter to the District Valuation Officer-Reference to the District Valuation Officer is mandatory and the Assessing Officer having failed to follow the provisions of the Act, he could not be given one more chance to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer-no addition could be made on the basis of value of property at circle rate of State Government. [S. 45 ]

Dr. Sanjay Chobey (HUF) v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 68 (SN)/ 194 TTJ 891(Agra) (Trib.)

S. 40(b)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Working partner– Remuneration–Supplementary partnership deed mentioning that amended provisions of S 40(b) is applicable -Deduction is available.

S. K. Diamonds v. DCIT (2018) 65 ITR 80 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Payment to charitable organisation- Exemption was granted to charitable organisation and no tax was to be paid–Disallowance cannot be made in view of second proviso with retrospective operation. [S. 11, 12, 197(1), 201]

Peerless Hospitex Hospital And Research Centre Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 67(SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)