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. 271D: Penalty – takes or accepts any loan or deposit- Representative of the assessee consented to the proposition that apart from the bona fides of the transaction, assessee is also required to prove the existence of reasonable cause to come within the immunity provided in S. 273B of the Act, Accordingly the Tribunal has not dealt with any further with the reservations expressed by the Division Bench in the reference note. Accordingly on facts the assessee has failed to show that there was a reasonable cause for getting loans in violation of the provisions of S. 269SS of the Act . Levy of penalty is held to be justified . [ S.269SS, 273B ]

Deepak Sales & Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT( 2018) 172 ITD 33/168 DTR 65/ 194 TTJ 690 / 65 ITR 726 (Mum)(Trib)(SB), www.itatonline.org

S.254(1): Appellate Tribunal –Additional claim-Block assessment -The fact that the second proviso to S. 158BC(a) prohibits an assessee who is subjected to search from filing a revised return of income does not mean that the assessee is prohibited from raising an additional claim before the appellate authorities [ S.158BC ]

Alok Textile Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 252 :Appellate Tribunal – Appointment of Tribunal Members under new rules – Persons selected as Member of the Appellate Tribunal will continue till the age of 62 years and the person holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.

Kudrat Sandhu v. UOI ( 2018) 257 Taxman 185(SC), www.itatonline.org

S. 147: Reassessment-If the recorded reasons do not specify, prima-facie, the quantum of tax which has escaped assessment but merely state that it would be at least Rs.1,00,000, and if the reopening is to “verify” suspicious transactions, prima-facie, the reasons do not indicate reasonable belief of the AO and the notice is without jurisdiction-Interim stay was granted till final hearing . [ S.148 ]

Dulraj U. Jain v. ACIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice -Reassessment- If the notice u/s 143(2) is issued prior to the furnishing of return by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148, the notice issued u/s 143(2) is not valid and the reassessment framed on the basis of said notice has to be quashed. S. 292BB does not save the assessment [ S.147) 148, 292BB ]

Halcrow Groups Ltd.v. ADIT ( 2018) 194 TTJ 704 /167 DTR 103(Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 2(1A): Agricultural income-Mushroom is not a ‘vegetable’, ‘plant’, ‘fruit’ or ‘animal’ but is a ‘fungus’. Anything which is produced by performing basic operations on the soil is an “agricultural product” and the income therefrom is “agricultural income”. The nature of the product and the fact that it is not a ‘plant’, ‘flower’, ‘vegetable’ or ‘fruit’ is irrelevant. The only relevant aspect is whether the production is by performing some basic operations on the soil. Accordingly the income from production and sale of Mushrooms can be termed as ‘agricultural’ income . [ S.10(1)]

DCIT v. Inventaa Industries Private Limited ( 2018) 168 DTR 81 / 178 ITD 1/ 194 TTJ 657/ 65 ITR 625 ( Hyd)(Trib)(SB), www.itatonline.org

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers –CIT(A) cannot enhance the assessment and also change the head of income without giving any show –cause notice . [ S.54F ]

Naresh Sunderlal Chug v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 116 (Pune) (Trib.)

S.206AA: Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Payment to non –resident – Assessee can apply the rate prescribed under DTAA if it is beneficial to him- Provision of S.206AA does not override provisions of DTAA [ S.90,195 ]

Emmsons International Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 171 ITD 140 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194I : Deduction at source – Rent –Hoarding- If a person has taken a particular space on rent and thereafter sub-lets same, fully or in part, for putting-up a hoarding, such payments would be liable for tax deduction at source under S. 194I and not under S. 194C of the Act .[ S.194C, 201(1))201(IA) ]

Accord Advertising (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 171 ITD 111 (Mum) (Trib.)

S.56: Income from other sources- Share premium- Addition cannot be made in respect of share premium received by assessee from its holding companies as said share premium was on account of capital transaction and was not an income within charging sections of Act . S 56(2)(viib) read with section 2(24)(xvi) are not made applicable to shares issued to non-residents mainly to encourage foreign investments. [ S.2(24)(xvi), 56(1) ,56 (2)(viib), 68, Companies Act, 2013 ,S,52, Companies Act, 1956 S.78 ]

DCIT v. Finproject India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 171 ITD 82 / 194 TTJ 277/ 170 DTR 52/ 64 ITR 27 (SN) (Mum) (Trib.)