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. 13 : Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions – Trust is not paying the rent which it occupied third and fourth floor- Repair and renovation of building owned by Trustee done by the Trust –Assessing Officer could not have disallowed expenditure incurred towards repairs and renovation of building owned by trustee on ground that it was in contravention of provisions of section 13(1)(c) as a benefit had accrued to trustee through such payment as the trustees were required to repay the expenditure incurred – Matter remanded. [S. 11, 12]

Children Welfare Education Trust. v. ITO(E) (2018) 172 ITD 650 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 12A : Registration–Trust or institution-Registration cannot be denied on the ground that the return of income was filed in response to notice u/s 148. of the Act-Requirement of filing report of audit in prescribed form is merely procedural and, therefore, directory in nature and not mandatory for the purpose of claiming exemption under S. 11 and 12 of the Act. [ S.11, 148 ]

Genius Education Society v. ACIT(E) (2018) 172 ITD 640/( 2019) 176 DTR 73/ 198 TTJ 498 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 12A : Registration–Trust or institution-Education-Profit-making per se cannot be regarded as detrimental as long as a society pursue a charitable purpose; activities of a trust/institution promoting education need not target to serve poor, but it should function in conformity with its objects- matter remanded. [S.2(15)]

Lord Shiva Educational Welfare Society v. CIT (2018) 172 ITD 429 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Object clause-Wrong jurisdiction-When trust filed affidavit stating that the trust was created with main object of educating public by establishing schools, technical colleges and other educational institutes and it was not doing any activities other than educational services, registration cannot be denied merely because aims and object of assessee-trust included some clauses which were not for purposes of education. [ S. 10(23C)(vi)]

St. Mary’s Education Trust v. CIT (2018) 172 ITD 513/ 172 DTR 321/ 196 TTJ 1117 (Asr.) (Trib.)

S. 9(1)(vii) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Fees for technical services -A Limited Liability Partnership incorporated under Laws of United Kingdom (UK), providing legal advisory services to its clients worldwide including India-By rendering those services, assessee did not ‘make available’ any technical knowledge, know-how or experience to its clients-Amount received by it was not taxable in India as fee for technical services. – Article 15 of India-UK DTAA applies to determine taxable income in hands of individual and not other persons, assessee being a partnership firm, amount of fee received by assessee for rendering legal advisory services was not taxable in India- Reimbursement of expenses being of routine nature and, moreover, there was no mark up involved amount in question could not be brought to tax as assessee’s income-DTAA- India -UK. [S.90, Art. 5(2)(k), 7, 13, 15]

Linklaters LLP v. DCIT (2018) 172 ITD 459 / 171 DTR 19(Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to furnish return of income-Failure to furnish return in response to notice under S.142(1)-Mere fact that subsequently furnished return of income and no amount of tax was due, would not exempt from liability to be prosecuted. Disobedience of each of said provisions of law itself constitute a distict offence[S. 139(1), 142(1), 148, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 482]

Karan Luthra. v . ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 209/ ( 2019) 175 DTR 258/ 309 CTR 114 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Refund was adjusted without taking in to consideration amount of advance tax paid-Order was set aside and matter was remanded for fresh disposal.

T.V. Ramanathan (HUF) v. ACIT (2018) 259 Taxman 179 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 237 : Refunds–Adjustment of refund-Claim for refund was rejected on ground that amount of refund had been adjusted against tax demand relating to subsequent assessment years, in view of fact that notice of demand under section 156 for subsequent years was never served on assessee, impugned order was to be set aside and a direction was to be issued to grant refund to assessee along with applicable rate of interest – Cost of Rs 1.50 lakhs was levied on the revenue with in four weeks by the Officers from their salaries – Superiors should enter their Annual confidential Reports these lapses and errors–Superiors must initiate the requisite steps and if they include denial of nay promotional or monetary benefits to such officials, then, even such steps and measures be initiated in accordance with law-That is the minimal expectation of this Court. [S. 156]

Nu-Tech Corporate Services Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 183/ 305 CTR 296/ 171 DTR 201(Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.orgEditorial: Strictures against DCIT and levy of personal cost of Rs 1.50 lakhs are expunged( SLP no 48031 /2018 dt 1-03-2019 ) Snajay Jain v Nu-Tech Corporate Services Ltd (SC) www.itatonline.org

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Expenses or payments not deductible–Excessive or unreasonable-Commission payment-Reflected in its books filed along with its return of income which was subjected to normal assessment, impugned addition was unjustified. [S. 40A(2)]

CIT v. Ansal Properties & Industries. (2018) 259 Taxman 103 /170 DTR 225/( 2019) 308 CTR 510(Delhi)(HC)

S. 158BA : Block assessment-Undisclosed income-Sale consideration- Security deposit was not offered to tax on the ground that there was no provision in agreement enabling buyer to refund any part of sale consideration -Buyer treated amount paid as stock-in-trade- Addition is held to be justified. [S. 68]

CIT v. Ansal Properties & Industries. (2018) 259 Taxman 103/ 170 DTR 225/( 2019) 308 CTR 510 (Delhi)(HC)