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. 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)

S. 194C : Deduction at source – Contractors -Payment towards annual maintenance contracts for lifts and air conditioners is not technical services -Deduction of tax as contractor is justified payment cannot be treated as fees for technical services . [ S.194J , 260A ]

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 dsmssed due to low tax effect , CIT v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority ( 2019) 262 Taxman 451 (SC)

S. 158BD : Block assessment – Undisclosed income of any other person -Recording of satisfaction is not required where AO is the same .[ S.132 ]

CIT v. Soudha Gafoor (Smt) ( 2017) 298 CTR 381/(2018) 408 ITR 246 (Ker) (HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – As long as the order of the Tribunal stood, the assessment order was required to be implemented-After giving effect to the order of the Tribunal -Notice issued for rectification of mistake on the ground of deduction was wrongly allowed is held to be bad in law .[ S. 54EC,115JB, 254(1) ]

Meteor Satellite Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 99 (Guj) (HC)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search and seizure-No incriminating material was found- Rejection of claim u/s 80IB, 80IC is held to be not justified [ S.80IB, 80IC, 132 ]

CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 170 (Delhi) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue , CIT v. Dharampal Premchand Ltd ( 2018) 405 ITR 27 (St)

S.147: Reassessment- Reason recorded was return was not filed -Affidavit in reply stated that possibility of application of S.50C- Incorrect reason- Notice is held to be bad in law .[ S. 50C, 139,148 ]

Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon. v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 268 (Guj) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Export oriented undertaking —Mentioning of wrong year of commencement of manufacture in Form 56G, when other materials furnished indicated correct year of commencement of manufacture is not a case of failure to disclose material facts — The proviso to S. 147 cannot be invoked on the Assessing Officer’s omission or mistake- Reassessment notice is held to be not valid – Notice is not barred by limitation .[ S.10B,148 ]

MBI Kits International v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 1/ 172 DTR 89 / ( 2019) 306 CTR 125(Mad) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- No failure to disclose material facts-Deduction was allowed after scrutiny -Reassessment is held to be bad in law – Revision application of of the assessee was allowed .[ S.10B, 143(3),148, 264 ]

Hitech Outsourcing Services. v. PCIT (2018) 408 ITR 129 (Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ,CIT v. Hitech Outsourcing Services ( 2018) 406 ITR 38 ( St)

S.132:Search and seizure – Survey converted in to Search- Seizure of unaccounted cash – Assessment pending- Writ to refund the amount of cash seized with interest was dismissed- On same set of facts second writ petition is not maintainable on the principle of Res Judicata. [ 132A, 1331, 153A, art. 226 ]

Rich Udyog Network Ltd. DIT (2018) 408 ITR 68/( 2019) 173 DTR 269 / 306 CTR 519 (All) (HC)

S. 80I : Industrial undertakings – Two units- No separate books of account- Division of income between the two units in proportion of their internal publication and circulation of the Ahmedabad edition is held to be proper .

CIT v. Lok Prakashan Ltd. (2018) 408 ITR 188/ ( 2019) 174 DTR 344/307 CTR 181 (Guj) (HC)