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. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- In the absence of any cogent material or evidence to establish any violation of provisions of S. 12AA(3),cancellation of registration retrospectively is held to be not justified [ S.11, 12AA(3) ]
CIT v. Rama Educational Society ( 2018) 99 taxmann.com 281/ 259 Taxman 369 ( All) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue , CIT v. Rama Educational Society ( 2018) 259 Taxman 368 (SC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax -Capital-Revenue- Amount received by assessee from assigning its business rights is held to be capital receipts . Amount is also not to be included in computing book profits . [ S.155JB, 263 ]
CIT v. Om Metals Infraprojects Ltd ( 2018) 99 taxmann.com 228 / 259 Taxman 355 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , CIT v. Om Metals Infraprojects Ltd ( 2018) 259 Taxman 354 (SC)
S. 69 :Unexplained investments -Investment in immovable property- Merely on the basis of statement u/s 132(4) during the course search proceedings additions cannot be made- Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed . [ S.132(4) ]
CIT v. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal ( 2018) 99 taxmann.com 291/ 259 Taxman 320 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to revenue , CIT v. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal ( 2018) 259 Taxman 320 (SC)
S. 69A : Unexplained money – Income from undisclosed sources – Merely on the basis of confessional statement made by third party under Maharashtra Central organised Crime Act, 1999(MOCA) stating that certain payment was made to the assessee ,without any corroborative evidence , deletion of addition held to be justified .[ S.132, Maharashtra Central organised Crime Act, 1999 S.18 ]
CIT v. Jagdishprasad Mohanlal Joshi ( 2018) 99 taxmann.com 287 / 259 Taxman 343( Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , CIT v. Jagdishprasad Mohanlal Joshi ( 2018) 259 Taxman 342 (SC)
S. 271G : Penalty – Documents – International transaction – Transfer pricing – A specific finding should be recorded on date by which assessee was required to furnish documents and whether said documents were furnished with in specified date – Deletion of penalty is held to be justified [ S.274 ]
CIT v. Gillette India Ltd ( 2018) 99 Taxman .com 230 / 259 Taxman 353 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Gillette India Ltd ( 2018) 259 Taxman 352 (SC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty—Concealment-No order of imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping proceedings for imposition of penalty shall be passed unless assessee is heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after expiry of six months from end of year of which order of appellate authority has been received by Commissioner. [S. 275 (IA)]
Asia Investments P.Ltd v. ACIT (2018) 167 DTR 59 / 63 ITR 535 / 193 TTJ 214 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements- No enabling provision to impose fees for late filing of return or statement of TDS prior to 1st June, 2015–AO had no jurisdiction to levy fees under section 234E if intimation issued prior 1st June, 2015. [S. 200A]
A.R.R. Charitable Trust v. ACIT (2018) 66 ITR 69 (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 153A : Assessment–Search-Additions made by AO were beyond scopebecause no incriminating material or evidence was found during course of search so as to doubt-Action of AO was based upon conjectures and surmises and hence, addition made was not sustainable in eyes of law [S. 132 , 143(3)]
ACIT v. Dingle Buildons Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 52 CCH 73 / 62 ITR 161 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 132(4) : Search and seizure–Statement on oath -Income from undisclosed sources—Unexplained investments—Excess stock-Addition on Gross profit earned and sales of unaccounted stock- Matter seta side to the AO to examine the reconciliation statement filed before the lower authorities. Further held that Assessee’s profit in earlier year was less than year under consideration meaning thereby his Gross Profit was higher than earlier years therefore, in such circumstances assessee’s contentions could not be denied. [S. 69, 132, 145]
Baroda Moulds and Dies v. ACIT (2018) 62 ITR 168 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Contractors – No Express or implied contract between assessee and maistries – No contract between assessee and maistries and payments to labour through maistries does not attract tax deduction at source [ S.194C ]
ACIT v. A. Kasiviswanadham and A. K. V. Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 66 ITR 525 (Viskha)(Trib.)