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. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel -Not an eligible assessee- Draft assessment order is invalid. [S. 92CA(3)]

ACIT v. Espn Star Sports Mauritius SNCET Companie (2019) 69 ITR 153 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Limited verification–The AO has to consider the claim of the assessee to make correct assessment- Matter remanded

Thakurraj Kumar v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 79 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Hindu undivided family -Agricultural land -Partition- Fixed deposits–Benami names of family members–Retraction of statement-No assessment is made in larger Hindu undivided family–Additions can be made in the hands of smaller HUF-Investments in fixed deposits to be considered as unexplained investments of smaller HUF in equal shares- Matter remanded. [S. 132(4), 171]

DCIT v. E. Ramesh Upadhyay, HUF (2019) 69 ITR 164 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Agricultural land-Gift-Agricultural land is an immovable property-Stamp valuation-It is immaterial whether they fall under definition of capital asset or stock-in-trade- Chargeable as gifts. [S. 2(14), 50C, 56(2)(viib), 69]

ITO v. Trilok Chand Sain (2019) 174 ITD 729/ 199 TTJ 395 / 177 DTR 76 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Business income–Investment in shares- Demarcated shares as investment in its balance sheet-Profit arising on sale of shares is chargeable to tax as capital gains and not as business income. [S. 28(i)]

Pratish Manilal Modi (HUF) v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 736 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Fair market value of land–When exact valuation is not possible reasonably to fix market value of land by averaging value given by assessee and Assessing Officer.

Mohan Alagappan v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 1 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Project competition method- Provision for expenses–When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure–Not liable to deduct tax at source–No disallowance can be made. [S. 145]

Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 217/ 175 ITD 671/ 178 DTR 5 /199 TTJ 1003(Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident–Purchase of bearings–Not liable to deduct tax at source –No disallowances can be made-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 195, Art. 26(3)]

ITO v. FIlco Trade Centre (2019) 69 ITR 99 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Provision for salary-Sixth Pay Commission -liability on account of payment of revised enhanced salary had neither accrued nor crystallized during relevant assessment year, impugned- Provision made is not allowable as deduction.[S. 145]

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. ACIT ( 2019) 174 ITD 785 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 28(i) : Business loss- Actor -Advance of money to production house -Write off of advances as non recoverable – Film was not successful- Loss is allowable as business loss or as business expenditure. [S. 37(1)]

Jackie Shroff v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 770/ 197 TTJ 568 / 174 DTR 161(Mum.)(Trib.)