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. 80HHC : Export business – Amendment with retrospective effect imposing conditions for exporters having turnover above Rs. 10 Crores , was held to be prospective in nature [ S. 28(i)]

Sarita Handa v. UOI (2018) 400 ITR 567 (Delhi) (HC) Sarita Handa v. UOI (2018) 400 ITR 567 (Delhi) (HC) Omsons Worldwide v. UOI (2018) 400 ITR 567 (Delhi) (HC)

S.80HHC: Export — Generation of profit in export business is irrelevant –Formula to be applied – Income from high sea sales to be included – Loss incurred in export business is eligible deduction [ S.80HHC (3) (c ) ]

CIT v. Jameela, J. S. Cashew Exporters. (2018) 401 ITR 391/ 165 DTR 287 (Ker) (HC)

S. 80HHC : Export business – Ninety per cent. of only net interest is to be Included in profits of business As Computed under head “Profits and gains of business.

CIT v. Banaras House Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 88 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 80G : Donation – Once registration was granted refusal of exemption for donation was held to be not justified [ S. 12AA, 80G(5) (vi) ]

Anand Incubation Centre v. CIT (E) (2018) 168 ITD 202 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 73 : Losses in speculation business -Gross total income- Income from other sources- Assessee falling within exception carved out in section.

Siddhesh Capital Market Services P. Ltd. v. (2018) 61 ITR 400 //53 CCH 427(Mum) (Trib)

S. 68:Cash credits — Gift – Credit worthiness of the donor was not established hence addition was held to be justified .

Sheela Ahuja Alias Lata Ahuja (Smt.) v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 56 (All) (HC)

S. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses -Loss of Current year and carried forward loss off of earlier year from non-speculative business can be set off against profit of speculative business of current year. [ S. 72(1 ) ]

CIT v. Ramshree Steels Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 61 (All) (HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Service tax paid through banking challans , addition was held to be not justified .

ITO v. Ravindra Pratap Thareja. (2018] 61 ITR 415 (Jabalpur) (Trib)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -CIT(A) applying 40% net profit on account of alleged concealed receipts was set a side to the AO to decide accordance with law .

ITO v. Ravindra Pratap Thareja. (2018] 61 ITR 415 (Jabalpur) (Trib)

S.69C: Unexplained expenditure -Bogus purchases- Non service of notice cannot be the basis to confirm the addition as bogus purchases considering other evidences purchases cannot be assessed as alleged bogus purchases .

Prabhat Gupta v. ITO (Mum)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org