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. 140A : Self assessment -Failure to pay self assessment tax , penalty cannot be levied [ S. 221 ]

Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 304/ 169 DTR 396/ 195 TTJ 536 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax -Book profit- In view of Explanation 1(v) of sub-section (1) of S. 234B, MAT credit has to be allowed from ‘assessed tax’ and, thereafter, interest to be computed [

Heddle Knowledge (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 304/ 169 DTR 396/ 195 TTJ 536 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Law of limitation will be governed by the law applicable when the order of Tribunal was passed and not as per amended law with effect from 1-06-2016 Since taxability of FTS is 15% earlier direction of Tribunal to tax at 20% is amended -DTAA-India- UK[ S.115A, art. 13(2) ] .

Gifford & Partners Ltd v. ADI. ( 2018) 169 ITD 224/193 TTJ 75 / 165 DTR 190 (Kol) (Trib.)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Failure to make out any prima facie case in its favour the Tribunal directed the assessee to pay deposit 50 percent of demand in question and furnishing the Bank Guarantee for balance amount . [ S. 220,254(1)]

Flipkart India ( P) Ltd v. CIT (2018) 169 ITD 211/165 DTR 1 / 193 TTJ 266(Bang) (Trib.)

S. 32: Depreciation -Computer- Film projector cannot be said to be computer eligible for higher rate of depreciation @ 60%.

Cinetech Entertainment India ( P) Ltd v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 218 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure -Advertisement , Marketing and business promotion expenses (AMP) by pharmaceutical company for promoting sale and brand was held to be allowable business expenditure. Revision was held to be not valid [ S. 263 ],

Solvay Pharma India Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 169 ITD 13/ 192 TTJ 394 /163 DTR 249 / 62 ITR 643 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Bank-Amortisation of premium paid for purchase of securities was to be allowed as deduction .

Allahabad Bank v. DCIT ( 2018) 169 ITD 189 ( Kol) ( Trib)

S. 45: Capital gains- Business income- Sale of land in small plots as required by end users is assessable as capital gains. [ S. 28(i)]

ACIT v.Narendra J.Bhimani ( 2018) 169 ITD 245 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 43(5) : Speculative transaction – Currency derivatives -Transactions through a recognised stock broker on recognised stock exchange , could not be termed as speculative transaction . [ S.73 ]

Nand Nandan Agrawal v. DCIT (2018) 169 ITD 161 (Agra) (Trib.)

S. 54F : Capital gains – Investment in a residential house –Sale is not concluded or agreement of sale is not certain to be honoured, assessee cannot claim deduction in respect of purchase or construction of property [ S.45, 54F(4)]

Mahesh Malneedi. v. ITO (2018) 169 ITD 154 (Hyd) (Trib.)