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. 80HHC : Export business-Income derived-Profits due to exchange fluctuation and provision written back–Entitle to deduction.

CIT v. TTK LIG Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 390 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 35AD : Deduction in respect of expenditure on specified business-Hotel business- Certification of Hotel as three-Star Category Hotel in subsequent year-Deduction cannot be denied on the ground that Certification was in later year. [S. 35D(5)(aa)]

CIT v. Ceebros Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 423/( 2019) 261 Taxman 41 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Fertiliser Bonds Issued By Central Government In Lieu of subsidy-Sale of Bonds at price Lower than face value-Loss is allowable as business Loss.

CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 378 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss- Capital or revenue-Investment in shares as Stock-in-trade-Consistency method-Loss is allowable as business loss. [S. 45]

Calibre Financial Services Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 410/ ( 2019) 260 Taxman 201 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Recording of satisfaction- Mixed funds – Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 640 (SC) does not lay down a proposition that the moment it is demonstrated that the assessee had availed of mixed funds, i. e., interest-free as well as interest bearing funds and utilized them for making investments into securities earning tax-free income and the rest applicability of section 14A read with rule 8D would be automatic Resorting to the method prescribed under rule 8D is not automatic-Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is held to be justified. [R. 8D]

CIT v. Shreno Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 401/( 2019) 261 Taxman 239 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income – Mixed funds-Having sufficient own funds–No disallowance can be made. [R. 8D]

CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 378 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders–Appeal filed was withdrawn–Revision application is maintainable-Writ petition is maintainable against the revision order -Sale of agricultural land-In the assessment of Co-owner the land was accepted as agricultural land–Rejection of revision application was held to be not valid–Matter remanded. [S. 45, 264(4)(a)]

Pallavarajha v. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 282/ 176 DTR 115/ 311 CTR 451 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Reassessment —Tribunal reversing decision of Commissioner (Appeals) without cogent reasons — Order of Tribunal is held to be not valid. [S. 147]

Prime Chem Oil Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 309 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-Reversal of findings of fact of Assessing Officer by Tribunal without recording reasons and also not deciding the cross appeal filed by the department- Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication. [S. 80IB]

PCIT v. Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 185 / 305 CTR 444/ 171 DTR 70 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Payment for technical services rendered outside India–Amendment with retrospective effect from 1-4-1962- Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S.9(1)(1) (vii)]

CIT v. Motif India Infotech (P.) Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 178 (Guj.) (HC)