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. 150 : Assessment – Order on appeal – Tribunal gave direction in the case of one person for assessing the income in the hands of the correct person –For the purpose of sub-section (2) of S. 150, the order under appeal would be the order of CIT(A) and, when the same was made, the limitation of 6 years had already expired to assess the correct person – Held, reassessment in case of the correct person was barred by limitation [S. 149]

Ramesh Chand Soni (HUF) v. ITO (2018) 161 DTR 205 / 191 TTJ 137 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – offering of income and allowability of expenses – Assessee floated a scheme wherein it received money in first year and the payment to the subscribers were to flow in subsequent years – held, taxing of income in first year and allowability of expenses in subsequent years based on cash system presented a skewed picture – Held, method of accounting should be such which does not affect the interest of the Revenue and at the same time should not put the assessee in undue hardship. Held, mercantile system to be followed.[ S.4 ]

Sahara India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 1/ 164 DTR 49 / 192 TTJ 655 (TM) (Luck.) (Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting – Assessee followed mercantile system of accounting – Certain percentage of expenses were debited in the year and the balance was deferred – Also, certain percentage of income was booked in the year and balance was deferred for a period of 12 years – Held, the accounts were liable to be rejected.

Sahara India Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 ITD 1/ 164 DTR 49 / 192 TTJ 655 (TM) (Luck.) (Trib.)

S.115JB: Book profits —Generation and distribution of electricity — Accounts to be prepared under state legislation — Provision computing book profit is not applicable.

India Power Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 42 (SN) (Kolk)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee – source of such cash deposit was cash withdrawal from the account of one contractor – Held, entire cash deposit cannot be taxed – such cash deposit is part of business receipts – Held, to meet the interest of justice 8% taxable.

Samar Singh Parihar v. ITO (2018) 62 ITR 61 (Jabalpur)(Trib.)

S.69: Unexplained investments – Books rejected in original proceedings and income estimated at 8 percent. of the gross contact receipts- Addition cannot be made u/s 69 in reassessment proceedings. [S.147]

Hemant Kumar Pradhan v. ITO (2018) 62 ITR 57 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – jewellery found during the course of search – Held, jewellery found was within the normal limits of jewellery specified under Board’s Circular, no addition justified.

Ritu Bajaj (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2018) 63 ITR 594 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S.68: Cash credits – Share application money – In the absence of any falsity having been found in the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share transaction, these documents could not be summarily rejected as had been done by the Assessing Officer- Deletion of addition is held to be justified .

ITO v. Dhanlaxmi Equipment P. Ltd. (2018) 63 ITR 33(SN)/193 TTJ 236 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits – cash deposited in bank – Held, opening balance was no doubted – Held, nothing to show that opening cash balance was utilized somewhere else – Held, accepted part deposit out of the said balance and only part not accepted. Held, addition not justified.

Rajinder Singh v. ACIT (2018) 63 ITR 550 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Conversion of agricultural land into residential plots – AO applied S. 50C – CIT(A) held that income in the nature of business income therefore, S.50C not applicable – Held, S. 45(2) not taken into consideration and therefore, matter remanded back to CIT(A). [S. 45(2)]

Ramswaroop Saudagar v. ITO (2018) 63 ITR 262 (Jaipur)(Trib.)