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. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Amount paid to employing foreign personnel for imparting education in India, amount set apart for payment in previous year and paid in subsequent year, expenditure of earlier years adjusted against income of current year ,amounts to application of income – When purposes of accumulation is mentioned in Form 10 charitable merely failure to give details — Exemption cannot be denied [ Form 10 ]
CIT v. Ohio University Christ College ( 2018) 408 ITR 352/( 2019) 306 CTR 281/174 DTR 10 (Karn) (HC) Editorial: Order in Dy.DIT v. Ohio University Christ College ( 2015) 44 ITR 291 ( Bang) ( Trib) is affirmed .
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Method of accounting – Following AS-7 of the ICAI and not appreciating the fact that the same is not notified by the provisions of section 145 of the Income -tax Act , 1961 is a question of law, which requires consideration . [ S.145 ]
PCIT v. International Metro Civil Contractors. (2018) 408 ITR 136/ 254 Taxman 426/ 304 CTR 682 (Bom) (HC)
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Precedent – Department could not be permitted to raise the same questions as had been earlier dealt with in the Division Bench judgments and orders of the court. [ S.40(a)(ia), 194J]
CIT v. Dedicated Healthcare Services (TPA ) India Pvt. Ltd. (2018] 408 ITR 36/ 304 CTR 937/ 259 Taxman 137 (Bom) (HC)
S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Direction to Tribunal to decide appeals within specified time is and vacation of stay is not mandatory-third proviso has to be understood with two clear prescriptions on caveat. They are that the third proviso has to be understood primarily as directory and not mandatory-Stay will not stand automatically vacated under third proviso to sub -section 2(A) of section 254 , unless the Tribunal records a finding that the assessee was responsible for the procrastination of hearing of the appeal- Interim stay granted to continue . [ S.254(1) ]
CIT (TDS) v. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 140 (T&AP) (HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Application -Rejection of application only on technical ground stating that the applicant has not mentioned the subsequent receipt of refund is held to be not justified – The order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Settlement Commission for fresh consideration. [ S. 245C, Art. 226 ]
Dr. Prathap Chandra Reddy.v. ITSC (2018) 408 ITR 222 (Mad) (HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission – Pendency of assessment -Once the assessment is made by the Assessing Officer by passing the order of assessment, the case can no longer be stated to be pending. An application for settlement would be maintainable only if filed before that date. The date of dispatch or service of the order on the assessee would not be material for such purpose Matter -Precedent -Settlement Commission must follow decision of jurisdictional High Court- Case remanded to Settlement Commission- .[ S.245C ]
CIT v. Vallabh Pesticides Ltd. And Another. (2018) 408 ITR 54 /( 2019) 173 DTR 356/ 307 CTR 646 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee . Vallabh Pesticides Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 27 (St) (SC)
S. 244A : Refunds – Interest on refunds – Search and seizure — Tax dues appropriated from seized cash — Balance to be returned with interest.[ S. 132 ]
Rajesh Vachhani v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 94 (Guj) (HC)
S. 194L : Deduction at source – Compensation on acquisition of capital asset -Compulsory acquisition of land for projects and paying sums to illegal squatters for their rehabilitation is not a case of compulsory acquisition from owners of land- Not liable to deduct tax at source .[ S.194LA, 201, 201A ]
CIT v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority. (2018) 408 ITR 111 /258 Taxman 164/ 304 CTR 776/ 170 DTR 97 (Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT (TDS) v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ( 2019) 263 taxman 365 ( SC)