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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties – Order for early hearing is not merely an administrative order but judicial order- Revenue has to move a formal application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules to bring on record additional evidences. [ S.254(2), R. 29 ]

Dr. Prannoy Roy .v. DCIT (2018) 303 CTR 122 /255 Taxman 369 / 166 DTR 317 (Delhi) (HC) Radhika Roy (Smt) .v. DCIT & Ors (2018) 303 CTR 122 /255 Taxman 369 / 166 DTR 317 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal – Stay of demand – Assessing Officer based on the information from the Central Excise Department rejected claim under S. 80IC of the Act – No independent inquiries conducted by Assessing Officer, apart from relying on information from Central Excise Department – 30% of tax demand deposited by Assessee – Assessee has made out a strong prima facie case in its favour for stay of balance demand. [ S.80IC ]

Turbo Energy (P.) Ltd .v. Asst Registrar, ITAT, Chennai (2018) 255 Taxman 175 / 168 DTR 380/ 304 CTR 322 (Mad)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Assessee to pay only a meager portion of tax demand (10%) for stay – Several cases were selected for scrutiny with aid of computers hence case not picked up for scrutiny maliciously – No need to interfere with the stay order of Revenue Authorities.

St Joseph’s Granites .v. ACIT (2018) 255 Taxman 123 (Ker)(HC)

S. 153D: Assessment – Search and seizure – Approval – No requirement under S. 153D of the Act for prior approval for passing order pursuant to / complying with remand or revisional directions by CIT [S. 143(3) ,263 ]

Osho Forge Ltd .v. CIT (2018) 255 Taxman 375 / 303 CTR 832/ 168 DTR 361/( 2019) 410 ITR 198 (P&H)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Validity of service – Notice was sent on the address where assessee was not residing – Service made at the address which was referred on the envelope not of assessee – Presumption of service cannot be drawn –Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.147,292BB ]

Shubhashri Panicker (Mrs) v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 434/166 DTR 1 (Raj)(HC)

S. 143(1D) : Assessment – Processing of return – Matter pending for scrutiny before competent authority – No mandamus can be issued by Court at this stage for granting refund [ S.237 ]

Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank v PCIT (2018) 166 DTR 407 / 303 CTR 303 (Pat)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income – Condonation of delay of 1232 days – When explanation offered was acceptable and genuine hardship established – Condonation application for delay is to be accepted [ S.119 ]

Dr. Sudha Krishnaswamy (Smt ) .v. CCIT (2018) 255 Taxman 46 /( 2019) 414 ITR 46(Karn)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price -company engaged in providing BPO services – Comparable company engaged in KPO and other IT services hence cannot be accepted as valid comparable

PCIT .v. BNY Mellon International Operations (India) (P.) Ltd (2018) 255 Taxman 397 (Bom)(HC)

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings – No deduction is allowable if return of income is not filed within due date of the filing of the return. [ 80AC, 139(1), 139(4) ]

Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Ltd .v. JCIT (2018) 407 ITR 16/ 255 Taxman 477 (Cal)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue -Purchase of computer software for up-gradation of existing computer software – Revenue expenditure even though it provides enduring benefit- Expenses for employees welfare -foster safe working environment is revenue expenditure – The test of one-time payment or not is not the sole test to determine nature of expenditure.

PCIT .v. Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd (2018) 255 Taxman 392 (Bom)(HC)