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. 10B: Export oriented undertakings – Manufacture -Processed Foods, Pickles, Fresh Fruits and vegetables — Neither the AO nor the Assessee brought on record the process of manufacturing activities – Matter remanded to the AO to find out whether there was manufacture per se, or not, what was the break-up of the exports of the processed foods, pickles, fresh vegetables and fruits separately, and after determining all the facts, the Assessing Officer shall re -adjudicate the issue after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case.

India Agro Exports P. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 81 ( SN) (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – In the course of scrutiny assessment, AO disallowed a part of business advancement expenses after verifying bills and vouchers- Manufacturing – R& D expenditure – Revision for further disallowance, re-determined claim of deduction under S. 80-IC and 80-IE and Weighted deduction-R& D expenditure – Revision is held to be not justified when in the Course of original assessment the AO has examined all the claims. [S. 35, 80IC, 80IE]

Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 / 196 TTJ 318/ 66 ITR 33 (SN)(Ahd.) (Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Condonation of delay of 387 days-turbulent time in family as well as with his earlier Chartered Accountant -Copy of complaint against the Chartered Accountant was also filed before the various authorities including the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur. – Delay was condoned .[S. 254(1)]

Nitesh Agarwal v. ACIT (2018) 173 ITD 14 / 196 TTJ 27 (UO)(Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice -After the expiry of four years- Without obtaining sanction-Entire reassessment proceedings stood vitiated-Even if assessment was reopened in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction of Appellate Authority, requirement of sanction is mandatory for issuing notice. [S. 147, 148, 149, 150]

Sonu Khandelwal (Smt.) v. ITO (2018) 173 ITD 67 /195 TTJ 715 /172 DTR 42/ 66 ITR 81 (SN)(Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Books of account not produced -Sale of furniture to Government offices- Treated as sales receipts and not contract receipts -Amount received was part of sales, hence the Assessing Officer was justified in treating same as contract receipt – Interest accrued- Assessable as income on accrual basis when the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting- Interest income accrued to assessee was duly recognized by debtor -Business expenditure-Not produced books of account and supporting vouchers for verification of expenditure booked by her in P&L account-Disallowance of expenditure is held to be justified- loan taken by assessee was found to be unexplained and was added to assessee’s income as cash credits , claim of expenditure of interest paid on such loan being consequential to claim of loan which is not allowable as deduction. [S. 5, 37(1), 68, 194C, 26AC]

Sonu Khandelwal (Smt.) v. ITO (2018) 173 ITD 67/195 TTJ 715 /172 DTR 42 / 66 ITR 81 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -Assessment proceedings were initiated by Assistant Commissioner, Circle -2(1), Bhubaneswar but taken over in middle of proceedings by Assistant Commissioner, (OSD), Range, 2 Bhubaneswar and completed by him- There was no order for transfer of jurisdiction- Order is held to be bad in law. [S. 120, 124, 143(2)]

Dillip Kumar Chatterjee v. ACIT (2018) 173 ITD 41 / 172 DTR 331(Cuttack) (Trib.)

S. 92B : Transfer pricing-International transaction-Bright line test -AMP expenses- A higher AMP expenses per se cannot be reason enough to infer that there is an international transaction; there has to be something more than mere quantum of expenditure to indicate, even if not established, that said expenditure is incurred on behalf of AE. [S. 92C]

Moet Hennessy India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 173 ITD 55/169 DTR 241 / 195 TTJ 377/ 358(Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 80IC : Special category States -Two manufacturing units both are eligible for deduction- One unit earned profit and other unit loss-AO is justified in setting of negative income of one eligible unit against positive income of other eligible unit. [S.80AB, 80IA(5), 80IC(7)]

Elin Appliances (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 122 / 198 TTJ 654/( 2019) 176 DTR 52(Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital-Loans-Furnished several documentary evidences to prove genuineness of unsecured loans and share capital investment and creditworthiness of parties- Addition cannot be made merely relying upon order of SEBI that some of shareholders of assessee were part of several entities who were linked to money laundering- Assessee is not required to prove source of the source – Deletion of addition by CIT(A) is held to be justified.

ITO v. Iraisaa Hotels (P.) Ltd. (2018) 173 ITD 30 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 54EC : Capital gains-Investment in bonds-Investment made from advance received on sale of capital asset before date of transfer of asset will qualify for exemption. [S. 45]

Rahul G. Patel. v. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 1 / 171 DTR 1/ 195 TTJ 1027/ 67 ITR 280(Ahd) (Trib.)