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. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Pendency of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – There was no statutory bar for Assessing Officer to rectify assessment order even if an appeal was pending against it – Assessee is directed to file objections before Assessing Officer. [ S. 250 ]

N. Arjunan v. ITO (2018) 257 Taxman 588 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 153D : Assessment – Search and seizure – Approval -Provision do not require any opportunity of hearing to be given to assessee by authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by Assessing Authority .[ S. 143(3),153A ]

Gopal S. Pandit v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 300 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – when department had correct address of assessee furnished in return of income, sending notice at incorrect address available with bank and then drawing presumption of service of notice on ground that notice was not received back unserved, could not be sustained.[ S.147 ]

Suresh kumar Sheetlani v. ITO (2018) 257 Taxman 338 (All.)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Bank- Valuation of shares and securities of public Ltd Companies -Books at cost and in the return cost or market value which ever is less- changed method of valuation of closing stock i.e. cost or market price whichever was lower would determine income/loss correctly- Order of Tribunal was set aside .

United Bank of India v. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 306 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Foreign company -Order in remand proceedings – Even in partial remand proceedings from the Tribunal, the Assessing Officer is obliged to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) of the Act-Order passed without passing a draft assessment order being violative of provisions of section 144C(1) is set aside .[ S.92C, 144C(1), 254(1)]

Dimension Data Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2018) 257 Taxman 442/ 169 DTR 145 / 304 CTR 140(Bom.)(HC)

S.143(3): Assessment – Revised return- Claim made under wrong provision , if necessary facts are available , the Assessing Officer can consider the claim though no revised return was filed-Alternative claim not raised in return can be claimed if necessary facts are on record. [ S.139(5) ]

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 358/257 Taxman 597 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 139AA : Return of income – Quoting of Aadhaar Number – CBDT issued a Press Release dated 27-3-2018 which extended time to link PAN with Aadhar number, while filing Income-tax return from 31-3-2018 to 30-6-2018 – Two High Courts on basis of said press release had directed for accepting ITRs without Aadhar No. and no attempt was made to vary said orders by department -Thus, department should accept returns if uploaded on or before 30-6-2018 without Aadhar Number, Aadhar Enrollment or any linkage with PAN details and in case system does not accept returns of income they are at liberty to file their return of income in physical form with jurisdictional Assessing Officer on or before 2-7-2018 [ R. 12(3) ]

Hussain Indorewala v. UOI (2018) 408 ITR 338 /303 CTR 641/168 DTR 113 /257 Taxman 465 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – Kolhapur to Mumbai -On facts, mere ‘Absence of dissenting notice’ from officers of equal rank who had to agree to proposed transfer, would not constitute agreement-Order of transfer of case was set aside.[ S.127(2)(a) ]

Herambh Anandrao Shelke v. M.L. Karmakar, PCIT (2018) 257 Taxman 487 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price –Mere observation of the Tribunal that the assessee being a newly established undertaking in free trade zone which is claiming deduction under S. 10A, provisions of Chapter X regarding Transfer Pricing ought not to have been applied -Court held that no reversal of finding of Assessing authority by the Tribunal hence appeal is not maintainable . [ S. 92C(4), 254(1),260A ]

CIT v. Philips Software Centre (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 449/( 2019) 173 DTR 291 / 306 CTR 405 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 80IB(10 :Housing projects- Local authorities could approve a housing project along with commercial user to extend permitted under DC Rules /Regulations framed by respective local authority -When local authorities approve the project as housing project – Deduction cannot be denied

CIT v. Makwana Brothers & Co (HWP) ( 2017) 88 taxmann.com 278 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Suyog Shivalaya (2018) 257 Taxman 334 (SC)