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. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record -Employees of statutory corporations cannot be regarded as employees of State or Central Government- Failure to deduct tax at source under bonafide belief-Held not liable to pay penalty – AO filed miscellaneous application-Held miscellaneous application is not maintainable–Tribunal cannot recall its previous order in an attempt to rewrite the same. [S.10(10AA), 192, 201(1), 201(IA)]
ITO (OSD) (TDS) v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corpn. Ltd. (2019) 175 ITD 130 / 199 TTJ 362/ 177 DTR 241(Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and The power conferred upon the CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing of appeal is to alleviate genuine suffering of taxpayers-He has the power and corresponding duty to exercise the power when circumstances so warrant-U/s. 14 of the Limitation Act, delay caused due to proceeding in a wrong forum has to be condoned- [ S.249(3)]
R. A. K. Ceramics v. DCIT ( 2019) 176 DTR 345/ 199 TTJ 373 (Hyd.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Even if the assessee does not report the specified transaction & the AO has no occasion to notice it, the TPO has no jurisdiction to suo moto determine the ALP-He has to call for a reference from the AO-.Alternate remedy is not a bar if the action is without jurisdiction & can be severed from the rest. [S. 40A (3A), 92BA(i), 92CA, 92E, Art. 226]
Times Global Broadcasting Company Ltd. v. UOI( 2019) 176 DTR 321/ 308 CTR 123 (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Interest-Royalty–Levy of surcharge and 3% education cess on tax computed-Held to be not valid- DTAA-India-UAE. [Art. 2(1), 11, 12]
R. A. K. Ceramics v. DCIT ( 2019) 176 DTR 345/ 199 TTJ 273 (Hyd.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 147 : Reassessment-Change of opinion-Reassessment proceedings on ground that loss arising from switching over from one plan of mutual funds to another was of capital nature when he himself had treated profits from sale of mutual funds as business income – Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S.28(1), 43(5), 148]
Pratham Investments. v. DCIT (2019) 175 ITD 114 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Obtaining occupation certificate is not a mandatory requirement in order to ascertain whether building was completed or not for purpose of deduction under section 80-IB(10)
Puran Ratilal Mehta v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 190 / 178 DTR 217/ 199 TTJ 607(Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Bogus Share Capital-Merely because the investment was considerably large and several corporate structures were either created or came into play in routing the investment in the assessee through a Mauritius entity would not be sufficient to brand the transaction as colourable device-The assessee cannot be asked to prove the source of source.
PCIT v. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd( 2019) 178 DTR 418/ 263 Taxman 539 (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org, Editorial : SLP of revenue dismissed , PCIT v. Aditya Birla Telecom Ltd ( 2021 ) 278 Taxman 8 (SC)
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Interest income earned on depositing surplus funds in FDRs is assessable as income from other sources and not as business income. [S. 28(i)]
Puran Ratilal Mehta v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 190/ 175 DTR 217/199 TTJ 607 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share premium-For purpose of sub-rule (2) of rule 11UA, an auditor cannot be account of assessee-company. [S. 44AB, 56(2)(viib), 288(2)]
Kottaram Agro Foods (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 175 ITD 159 / 199 TTJ 402/ 177 DTR 370 (SMC)(Bang.) (Trib.)
S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Investment in single house but bifurcated with two door numbers for ground and first floor-New house purchased in the joint name of wife and son entitle to deduction–Property need not be purchased by assessee in his own name for claiming exemption. [S. 2(42A) 2(47), 45]
Bhatkal Ramarao Prakash v. ITO (2019) 175 ITD 144 / 199 TTJ 861/ 180 DTR 100(Bang.)(Trib.)