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.271(1) (c) : Penalty concealment – Specific charge -concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income –Issue which was not raised in original proceedings cannot be raised in remand proceedings. [ S.254(2) , 271(1)(a), 274 ]

Meena Bajaj (Smt) v. ITO (2018) 167 DTR 89 / 192 TTJ 952/ 63 ITR 35 (SN) (Jaipur )( Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Transfer pricing adjustment– Software development–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92C]

United Health Group Information Services (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 168 DTR 246 / 192 TTJ 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-capital work in progress- Short term loss-Assessee has sold plant and machinery along with capital WIP, then order passed by AO cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 143(3)]

Titagarh Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 195 TTJ 1010 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s 200A, levy of late fee is not valid. [S. 200A]

Sudarshan Goyal v. Dy. CIT (2018) 194 TTJ 22 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 234E : Fee-Default in furnishing the statements-in the absence of enabling provisions u/s. 200A, levy of late fee is not valid- Matter remanded. [S. 200A]

State Bank of India v. ITO (TDS) (2018) 195 TTJ 6 (UO) (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 221 : Collection and recovery–Penalty-Tax in default –Survey- Reasonable cause -Cash was generated on account of sale of property- Levy of penalty was held to be not valid. [S. 133A]

Shivjot Developers & Builders Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 193 TTJ 74 (UO) (Chd.)(Trib.)b

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation- Order passed by AO raising demand u/s.201(1) is beyond limit provided in sub-section (3) for quarter Nos.1 to 3 then, AO could be directed to delete demand raised for quarter Nos.1 to 3. and sustained demand for quarter No.4–U/s.201(3) no limit was provided for passing order charging interest u/s 201(1A), hence assessee was liable to pay interest u/s 201(1A) and said order of AO was upheld – Partly allowed.[S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3)]

Vodafone Cellular Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2018) 165 DTR 88/ 169 ITD 675 / 193 TTJ 404 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 194H : Deduction at source–Commission or brokerage–Cash discount-Provision is applicable in respect of amounts paid to agents in connection with sale of SIM cards and other services- Mere fact that assessee was only a recipient and had not paid any amount to distributor would not make a difference. [S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 163 DTR 179 / 191 TTJ 294 (Hyd.)(Trib.) b

S. 147 : Reassessment-Claimed deduction u/s. 10B despite fact that STPI, Noida from whom assessee had been taking approval was not competent to accord approval for deduction- Reassessment is held to be justified-AO is bound to allow deduction u/s. 10A which was made in the return filed in pursuance of notice u/s. 148 [ S.10A]

Smart Cube India (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 164 DTR 201 / 192 TTJ 881 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment–Method of accounting-AIR information-Addition cannot be made solely based on AIR information. [S.4, 145, AS-26]

ACIT v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd ( 2018) 193 TTJ 36 (UO) (Mum.)(Trib.)