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. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers- Fresh claim can be made before the appellate authorities if the assessee demonstrates that he was unable to make such a claim through a revised return. [S. 35D,139(5)]

HLL Lifecare Limited v. ACIT (2018) 191 TTJ 1(UO) / 66 ITR 361 (Cochin) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – DRP directed the TPO to give working capital adjustment using OECD methodology and to apply SBI Prime Lending rate as interest rate and hence the impugned Order passed did not require any interference.

ITO v. H & S Software Development & Knowledge Management Centre P. Ltd. (2018) 62 ITR 65/ 90 taxmann.com 333 (Delhi )( Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price – A company having a calendar year ending, cannot be compared with the assessee having a financial year ending notwithstanding functional similarity between two companies.

ITO v. Copal Research (I)(P.) Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 129 / 191 TTJ 1000 / 90 taxmann.com 70 (Delhi) ( Trib.)

S. 80-IC : Special category States– Support services provided to IT companies by the assessee through its own staff is eligible for deduction .

IMSI India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 191 TTJ 662/ 166 DTR 337 (Delhi )Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure –Bogus purcahses -Estimation of profits embedded in purchases at 12.5% is reasonable when the assessee failed to prove the purchases to be genuine and also failed to produce the selling parties during the course of the assessment proceedings. [ S.133(6),145 ]

ITO v. Prankit Exports (2018) 62 ITR 243 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share capital- Identity , genuiness and credit worthiness was probed by filing PAN master data , Return ackowledge ment return etc. Deletion of addition was held to be justified .[ S.133(6) ]

ITO v. Sringeri Technologies (P) Ltd. (2018) 191 TTJ 803/ 169 DTR 321 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Contractor – The matter was restored back to the AO to verify as to whether tax was deposited by the parties or not. [S.194C(6)]

Indo Swiss Anti-Shock Ltd. v. ITO(2018) 62 ITR 280 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Bogus purcahses -The assessee was doing major works for Govt. Departments and the said Departments also confirmed the authenticity of work and merely because the assessee could not produce the parties, purchases could be held as non-genuine.Disallowance was confiremd of only Rs 5 lakhs . [ S.131 , 145 ]

IHR Associates v. Dy. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 70 (Chd)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Circular No. 5/2012 dated 01-8-2012 ( 2012) 346 ITR 95(St) prohibiting pharmaceutical companies from giving any monetary benefits to doctors, was applicable from assessment year 2013-14 onwards- As the addition was deleted consequently penalty levied was also deleted . [S.271(1)(c)]

ITO v. Sunflower Pharmacy (2018) 62 ITR 275 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – The AO has to first record satisfaction having regard to accounts of the assessee that the claim made by the assessee with regard to non-incurrence of any expenditure for the purpose of earning income is incorrect before proceeding to make any disallowance. [ R.8D ]

IMC Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 73 (Kol.)(Trib.)