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. 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)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings – Manufacture – Ayurvedic medical products- Filling of mushroom powder in gelatin capsules after following specified process amounts to manufacture or production of commercially distinct commodity -Entitle to deduction .

DXN Herbal Manufacturing (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 257 Taxman 492/ ( 2019) 411 ITR 646/ 307 CTR 556/ 174 DTR 203 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation -Donation to a charitable trust for applying the same for air-conditioning of a town hall owned by local authority- As the charitable trust merely acted as agent of assessee in carrying out air condition of hall and there was no donation made by assessee which could be applied for charitable purposes for which the trust was established – Claim is not allowable as deduction .[ S.37(1) ]

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

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses – Dividend – where investments were business investments, carried forward business loss could be set off against dividend income earned from such business investment as even though dividend was classified under separate head, but same was very much part of income from business.[ S.56 ]

CIT v. Shriram Chits & Investments (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 395/(2019) 410 ITR 10 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Search-Work in progress-Valuation report of site engineer higher than work -in- progress recorded in the books of account -Addition is held to be not valid [ S. 69A,132 ]

CIT v. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 561/ 172 DTR 28 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. B. G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd ( 2019) 265 Taxman 543 (SC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Survey- Undisclosed stock -When undisclosed purchases are discovered- Only profit embedded in transaction can be added as income .[ S. 4, 133A, 145 ]

PCIT v. Subarna Rice Mill (2018) 257 Taxman 509 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect ,PCIT v. Subarna Rice Mill ( 2020 ) 269 Taxman 565 (SC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account –Survey- Suppression of sales – Sale suppression detected during survey was actual price for which liquor was sold, addition made on account of sale suppression is held to be justified .[ S.133A ]

CIT v. Archana Trading Co. (2018) 257 Taxman 386 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account – Survey -Merely on the basis of statement in the course of survey offering additional income -Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.133A ]

CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd( 2018) 96 taxmann.com 279 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 337 (SC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Deposit from dealers and agents – Merely because there was a permission granted under Companies Act to accept deposits from public, it did not necessarily follow that deposits shown by assessee were really those received from members of public or from agents- Matter remanded.

CIT v. Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 624/ 257 Taxman 566 (Ker.)(HC)