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. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay- Interest is automatic — Genuine belief that tax was not deductible at source is not relevant – Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption- Failure to deduct tax and deposit to Govt interest can be Levied- Unlike S.221 , S. 201(1A) is not hedged in by any requirement such as good faith or wilful default. Therefore, for levying interest, mens rea or wilful conduct is wholly irrelevant.[ S. 15, 10(14) , 17 , 192 , 221 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Undisclosed income — Amount surrendered in the course of survey- Merely on the basis of statement in the course of search or survey addition cannot be made, if the assesseee is able to explain the differences- Actual concealment was less than the amount surrendered -Deletion on the basis of explanation is held to be valid . [ S. 132,133A ]

CIT v. S. K. D. New Standard Coaching Institute (2018) 407 ITR 529 (All) (HC)

S.147:Reassessment —Subsequent receipt of tax evasion report from Investigation Wing of Income-Tax Department — Notice After Considering Report —Notice is valid – Error in name of the assessee in notice – Reply by assessee- Human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid and no prejudice had been caused- No prejudice to the assessee – Notice cannot be invalidated [ S. 143(1), 148, 292B ]

Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment — Client code modification -Information from investigation wing regarding evasion of tax by assessee —Notice is held to be valid .[ S. 133A,148 ]

Rakesh Gupta v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 213 / 303 CTR 670/167 DTR 265/101 CCH 318 (P&H) (HC)

S.144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Transfer Pricing Officer – Draft assessment order- Reference to TPO – Failure to comply with statutory requirement under S.144C, defects cannot be cured by issuing corrigendum – Order of assessment is held to be void . [S.92CA, 143(3), 292B ]

ACIT v. Vijay Television (P.) Ltd ( 2018) 407 ITR 642 / 304 CTR 149( Mad) (HC) Editorial: Decision of the single judge in Vijay Television (P.) Ltd. v. DRP (2014) 369 ITR 113 / 270 CTR 505 / 225 Taxman 35 (Mad.)(HC) is affirmed .

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Difference between Knowledge process outsourcing and business process outsourcing- The conclusion of the Tribunal was justified and on facts the Tribunal was correct in excluding the comparable companies- Explanation to S. 92B By Finance Act, 2012 — Delay in realisation of trade debt — Transfer pricing provisions is applicable [ S.92B ]

PCIT v. Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India P. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 450/304 CTR 113 / 169 DTR 113 //96 taxmann.com 237(Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee is dismissed Mckinsey Knowledge Centre India P. Ltd v.PCIT ( 2019) 261 Taxman 451 (SC)

S. 92A : Transfer pricing – Associated enterprises -Supplier of assessee is not manufacturer — Assessee and supplier Partnership is not controlled by individuals — Neither of Firms holding 10 Per Cent. interest in each other- Not associated enterprises .[ S.92C ]

CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 407 ITR 639 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 406 ITR 37 ( St)

S. 80HH :Newly established industrial undertakings – Back ward areas –Processing of cashew nuts in own factory and Industrial undertaking of sister concerns in backward areas —Entitle to deduction .

CIT v. R. Prakash, Dhanya Foods. (2018) 405 ITR 261/ 304 CTR 333/ 167 DTR 229 (Ker) (HC)

S.68:Cash credits — Share capital — Genuineness of investors in shares were not satisfactorily explained — Order of Tribunal is affirmed .[ S.260A ]

Gopal Iron And Steel Co. (Guj) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 407 ITR 533 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the assessee; Gopal Iron And Steel Co. (Guj) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 402 ITR 29 ( St)

S.68 : Cash credits – Interest- Deletion of addition is held to be justified – Provision for forward contract -Question of fact [ S. 37(1) ,260A.]

CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 407 ITR 639 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Veer Gems. (2018) 406 ITR 37 ( St)