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. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-Fees levied u/s. 234E prior to 01.06.2015 in intimations made u/s. 200A was directed to be deleted. [S. 200A]

Sonalac Paints & Coatings Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 167 DTR 83 / 194 TTJ 771 (Chd.)(Trib.)/Nagapal Trading Co v .Dy CIT ( 2018) 167 DTR 83/ 194 TTJ 771 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 234C : Interest-Deferment of advance tax-There was no tax due on returned income and hence, no interest could be levied.

Morgan Stanley Investment Management (P) LTD. v. DCIT(2017) 160 DTR 19 (2018) 191 TTJ 365 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 234A : Interest-Default in furnishing return of income-Taxes deposited before filing the return of income is more than the taxes finally determined on regular assessment, interest is not leviable.

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 196 TTJ 768 / (2019) 174 DTR 383(Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake–Refund of excise duty –Interest subsidy – Capital receipt. [S.145A]

Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills v. DCIT (2018) 169 DTR 137 / 195 TTJ 125 (Asr.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Notice issued in the name of individual- Sanction was obtained in the name of firm-Reassessment is held to be bad in law –Not curable defects. [S. 148, 292BB]

Kailash Sharma v. ITO (2017) 49 CCH 545 / (2018) 163 DTR 130/ 192 TTJ 488 (Asr.) (Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Adjustments towards disallowance of amortization of subsidized cost-Different treatment given in the books of account-Adjustment is held to be not valid.

Scrabble Entertainment Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 169 DTR 51 / 193 TTJ 418 ( Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing—Selection of Comparables—Turnover filter— Analysis that smaller companies having less turnover could not be considered as comparable with assessee—Similarly, company who had more turnover than assessee could not be compared with assessee.

Schutz Dishman Biotech P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 196 TTJ 10 (UO) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S.92C: Transfer pricing—Provision of software development services-Net Margin Method (TNMM) for benchmarking its international transaction of Provision of software development services-Working capital adjustment–Matter remanded.

Pitney Bowes Software India (P.) Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2018) 165 DTR 81 / 192 TTJ 778 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Functionally different company cannot be selected as a comparable for arriving ALP of an international transaction.

Philips Medical Systems Private Ltd (now merged with Philips Electronics India Ltd.). v. ITO (2018) 196 TTJ 1031 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Protective assessment by invoking Brightline method-Concept of ‘protective assessment’, as known to income tax law, had no application to assessee’s case- Merely because a binding judicial precedent from jurisdictional High Court had been challenged by revenue authorities before Supreme Court-Binding nature of a judicial precedent, as long as it hold field i.e. was not overturned, remained unaffected-Addition is deleted.

MSD Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Add.CIT (2018) 162 DTR 149 / 191 TTJ 702 (Delhi) (Trib.)