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. 68 : Cash credits -Share application – The assessees has filed balance sheet confirmation etc, addition cannot be made merely on suspicion , if AO has any doubt he should make enquiry with lenders bank etc .

CIT v Russian Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 300 CTR 501 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Claridges Hotels ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 300 CTR 501 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 37 (1) : Business expenditure – Provision for deficiency in service – Ascertained liability – Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation -Addition cannot be made. [ S.145 ]

CIT v Narinderjit Singh (2018) 161 DTR 200 / 300 CTR 217 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Trade discount – Agents’ deposit – Regular business transactions cannot be assessed as deemed dividend .

CIT v Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 595/ 162 DTR 281/ 301 CTR 552/ 253 Taxman 292 (Ker) ( HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Statement u/s 132(4) can be used against the assessee only if the statement has relevance to any incriminating document or material found during course of search -Block assessment is held to be bad in law.[ S. 132(4) ]

Promain Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 188 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Share application-Investors have complied with details u/s 133(6) and the summons was not issued to the investors though request was made by the assessee, addition was held to be not justified . [ S. 131,133(6) ]

Prinku landfin (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 139 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.147: Reassessment -In the notice u/s 143(2) earlier assessment year is mentioned , the said notice cannot be said to be in valid [ S.143(2), 148 ]

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.69: Unexplained investments –Family settlement- Sale deed showed cash consideration was paid therefore addition as unexplained investment was held to be justified .

Mahendri Devi v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 181 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S.45: Capital gains- Family settlement – As per the will the assessee was not entitle to receive any property. As the assessee had no right title in the property accordingly the some received towards one time settlement cannot be assessed as capital gains . However the amount received by the assessee requires verification hence the matter was remanded .[ S.2(47) ]

Tarlochan Singh v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 171 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Bogus donation – Merely on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing without supplying the copy to the assessee , cancellation of registration is held to be bad in law . [ S.12A,35(1)(iii) , 80G ]

Bioved Research Society. v. CIT (2018) 170 ITD 160 (All) (Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Unexplained investments – Remand report- Strictures-Once the AO was satisfied in the remand proceedings and did not oppose not controverted the documents filed by the assessee, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by the Order passed by the CIT(A) considering his own remand report.Merely on account of change of the AO, presumably the incumbent cannot be allowed to file appeals willy nilly. Such rampant careless behaviour shakes the public trust and faith reposed in the authority of the AO to act fairly and impartially . [ S. 69C,251 ]

ITO v. Randhir Singh (2018) 163 DTR 10/192 TTJ 64 ( SMC) (Chd.)(Trib.)