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. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay – Mere pendency of an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) was no ground to state that there should be stay on recovery of tax demanded. No prima facie case is established for grant of an unconditional stay- Direction of AO to deposit 20 percent of tax demanded was held to be justified [ S.220 ]

Vasan Health Care (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 406 ITR 462/256 Taxman 4 (Mad)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – No coercive steps should be taken for recovery of outstanding tax demand, till expiry of period of limitation for filing an appeal.[ S.253 ]

Kalaignar TV (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 49 (Mad)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay -On payment of 20% of original tax demanded , notice issued u/s 226(3) of the Act is directed to be vacated . [ S.220 , 226(3) ]

Bright Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 29 /( 2019) 417 ITR 356 (Karn)( HC) Editorial: Affirmed by division bench Bright Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2019) 417 ITR 360 ( Karn) (HC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities –Co –operative society- Banking business-Interest paid to members on time deposits is not required to deduct tax at source .

CIT (A) v. Bijapur District Central co -Operative Bank Ltd (2018) 256 Taxman 51 (Karn)(HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ; CIT v. Bijapur District Central Co-Opertaibe Bank Ltd ( 2019) 260 Taxman 297 (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Comparable- when the Tribunal accepted the plea that functionally dissimilarity, remanding the matter to TPO was held to be not justified – Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merit [ S.254(1) ]

Oriflame India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 37/( 2019) 173 DTR 285 / 306 CTR 319(Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price- When there is a difference in level of capacity utilization of assessee and level of capacity utilization of comparable, then adjustment would be required to be made to profit margin of comparable on account of difference in capacity utilization in terms of rule 10-B (1)(e)(iii)

CIT v. Petro Araldite (P.) Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 16 (Bom)(HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Expenses on restructuring of business is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure.Sale of one of unit- Expendiure is allowable .

PCIT v. Akzo Noble India Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 1 / ( 2019) 413 ITR 79(Cal)(HC)

S.37(1):Business expenditure-Capital or revenue – Software -Expenditure incurred on acquiring licences to use software which did not confer any enduring benefit hence allowable as revenue expenditure.

Oriental Bank of Commerce v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 24/ 168 DTR 345 / 304 CTR 981 (Delhi)(HC)

S.37(1): Business expenditure -Amount paid to cane growers in excess of price determined in Sugarcane Control order, to be allowed as deduction.

CIT v. Aruna Sunrise Hotels Ltd. (2018) 256 Taxman 43 (Mad)( HC)

S.32:Depreciation-Printer being a part of computer, is eligible for depreciation at higher rate of 60 per cent.

CIT v. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (2018)406 ITR 406/ 256 Taxman 32 (Mad)( HC)