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. 80 : Return for losses – Unabsorbed depreciation and carried forward losses – A return filed u/s 153A is deemed to be a return filed u/s 139(1). Accordingly, the restrictive provisions of S. 80 do not apply. The return u/s 153A, once accepted and assessed, replaces the original return filed u/s 139. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for carry forward business loss [ S.139(1), 153A ]

ACIT v. Splendor Landbase Limited ( Delhi)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 45: Capital gains- Argument that the allotment of shares by the assessee’s holding co to foreign investors at huge valuation results in a “transfer”/ “indirect transfer” of the assessee’s assets to the foreign investors is not correct. Argument that a multi layered holding structure was deliberately created to avoid taxes in India and to conceal the information about the ultimate beneficiaries is also not correct [ S.2 (47), 48 ]

Supermax Personal Care Private Limted v. ACIT( 2018) 65 ITR 42 (SN) / 169 DTR 41 / 194 TTJ 815 ( Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 44C: Non-residents – Head office expenditure -A non- resident assessee is entitled to claim deduction of an amount equal to 5% of the adjusted total income as expenditure in the nature of Head Office (HO) Expenses. The fact that the expenses are not debited in the Profit & loss account or the books of account is irrelevant. The entries in the books of account are not conclusive [ S.145 ]

Ernst & Young Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) (2018) 94 taxmann.com 227 ( Mum) (Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.23: Income from house property –Annual value – The assessee has the option to claim as self occupied property which is more beneficial to him [ S.22 ]

Venkatavarthan N. Iyengar v. ACIT ( Mum) (Trib)

S. 9(1)(i):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection -Subsidiary of a foreign company constitutes “business connection” and/ or “fixed Permanent Establishment” and/or “Dependent Agent Permanent Establishment” of assessee in India-Held No , (b) whether any attributes of profits on account of signing, network planning and negotiation of off-shore supply contracts in India could be attributed to such business connection/ permanent establishment -Held No and (c) whether notional interest on delayed consideration of supply of equipment and licensing of software taxable in the hands of assessee as interest from vendor financing- Held No -DTAA- India –Finland –Majoriy view is in favour of the assesee. [ Art .5, 7 ]

Nokia Networks OY, v. JCIT ( 2018) 65 ITR 23/ 167 DTR 137/ 194 TTJ 137 /171 ITD 1 ( SB) (Delhi ( Trib) www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Interpretation of taxing statutes to be construed harmoniously with object of statute.

B. L. Passi v. CIT ( 2018) 404 ITR 19/ 165 DTR 143 / 302 CTR 81/ 255 Taxman 143 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Income -tax -General principles -Taxing provisions must be construed strictly so that no person who is otherwise not liable to pay tax , be liable to pay tax .

ACIT v. Bharat V. Patel (2018) 404 ITR 37/ 165 DTR 218/ 302 CTR 110 / 255 Taxman 324 (SC) , www.itatonline.org

S. 44BB : Mineral oils – Computation -Consideration received under contract is not fees for technical fees or royalty -Consideration received was held to be taxable as business income – DTAA -India United Arab Emirates- Duration of operation of less than 120 days is not material . [ S. 9(1) (vi), 9(1)(vii) Art. 5(1),12 ]

Seabird Exploration Fz Llc, In Re (2018) 403 ITR 82/302 CTR 19 / 165 DTR 33 (AAR)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – ‘On-money’ – Sale of land -Burden is on the department to show that ‘on-money’ consideration passed to the seller from the purchaser- Opportunity to cross examine the witnesses was not provided to the assessee- Addition was deleted . [ S.131 ]

CIT v. Sunita Dhadda [2018] 403 ITR 309 (St.) (SC)/Editorial : Order in CIT v. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 406 ITR 220 ( Raj) (HC)// CIT v. Vijay Laxmi Dhadda (Smt) (2018) 406 ITR 220 ( Raj) (HC) is affirmed .

Chartered Accountants Act, 1949

S. 21: Misconduct – SEBI and Disciplinary Committee of ICAI have found the respondent Chartered Accountant is guilty of several irregularities in public issue of a company – Removal of name from Register of Members of ICAI for a period of one year was held to be valid .

Council of the ICAI v. Ashok Kumar ( 2018) 252 Taxman 129 ( Delhi) (HC)