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.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Notice is not mentioning of failure to disclose material facts -Reassessment is not valid [ S.148,151 ]

Anne Venkata Vishnu Vara Prasad v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491 /169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC) Yelamanchili Venkta Ramana v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491/ 169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years -Income forming subject matter of appeal —Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.148 ,151 ]

Anne Venkata Vishnu Vara Prasad v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491/ 169 DTR 377 / 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC) Yelamanchili Venkta Ramana v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491 /169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476(T&AP) (HC)

Constitution of India – Jurisdiction
Art.226:High Court — Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court — Company having Registered Office in Delhi —Notice to Non-Executive Chairman in Chennai — Chennai High Court has Jurisdiction to consider Writ petition by non-executive Chairman [ S.2(35) , 276B ,278AA]

Kalanithi Maran v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 356/ 256 Taxman 260/ 304 CTR 17 / 168 DTR 385 (Mad) (HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source -Non-Executive Chairman is not involved In Day-To-Day affairs of company — Managing Director admitting Liability and entering into negotiations with revenue — Prosecution of Non-Executive Chairman is held to be not valid . [ S.2(35) ,278AA]

Kalanithi Maran v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 356/ 256 Taxman 260/ 304 CTR 17 / 168 DTR 385(Mad) (HC)

S. 80G : Donation – Trust was created for the upkeep and maintenance of a museum and also the activity of running the school- Direction of Tribunal to grant the approval was held to be justified.[ S.80G(5) ]

CIT v. Maharaja Sawai Man Singh-Ii, Museum Trust. (2018) 405 ITR 478 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Maharaja Sawai Man Singh-II, Museum Trust. (2018) 404 ITR 3 ( St)/ 256 Taxman 295 (SC)

S.56:Income from other sources — Business income —Setting up business — Interest on fixed deposits – Assessable as income from other sources [ S.28(i) ]

CIT v. Sangam Power Generation Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 390 (All) (HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure — Expenditure incurred on Freebies provided to medical consultants, consultancy or honorarium fee, registration, sponsorship and training — Matter remanded to Tribunal to reconsider the issue .[ S.254(1)

Boston Scientific India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 412 (Delhi) (HC)

S.28(va): Business income- Non-Resident —Non-compete fee — Negative covenant for three years only and not permanently- Receipts is taxable as business income but not taxable in India in absence of any permanent establishment of non-Resident In India – There was no transfer of any capital asset hence not liable to capital gains tax – DTAA- India -United Kingdom [ S.45 2(47) Art. 7 (1) ]

HM Publishers Holdings Ltd., In Re (2018) 405 ITR 441/ 303 CTR 775/ 167 DTR 439 (AAR)

S. 32 : Depreciation – Goodwill- Intangible asset-Goodwill will fall under the expression ‘or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature’ hence depreciation is available on genuine goodwill. Whether there is transfer of goodwill and valuation done by the assessee is erroneous has to be decided by division Bench , accordingly the matter is sent back to division Bench .

CLC & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 168 DTR 157 / 171 ITD 139/ 194 TTJ 700 (SB) (Delhi)(Trib) www.itatonline.org

S.254(1):Appellate Tribunal- Tribunal has no power of enhancement- Tribunal cannot take back benefits granted to assessee by Assessing Officer . Therefore, direction of Tribunal to Assessing Officer to determine depreciation or business loss of each year and carry forward lower of two for adjustment under section 115JA, which would result in enhancement of assessment, was not justified. [ S.115JA]

Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 256 Taxman 46 / 168 DTR 342 / 304 CTR 319(Mad)(HC)