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. 5 : Scope of total income – Co –operative society- Banking business- Accrual- Interest on doubtful debts or Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) without such interest being actually received or credited in profit & loss account of assessee- Not required to pay tax on interest income .[ S.43D ]

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. 271AAB:Penalty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012- Amount offered was not undisclosed income -Levy of penalty was held to be not justified .[ S.132 ]

DCIT v. Subhas Chandra Agarwala and Sons (HUF) (2018) 65 ITR 18 (SN)(Kol) (Trib)

S.271(1) (c ):Penalty — Concealment- Quantum appeal the relief was allowed -Levy of penalty was held to be not valid .

Paramjit Singh v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 244 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Share application money -No finding that assessee’s unaccounted money routed through circuitous manner — Assessment order accepting share capital/share premium is not prejudicial to interests of revenue — No Adverse finding or comment by Commissioner as why work-in-progress shown by assessee at nil is not correct or requires further inquiry or verification — Revision was held to be not valid [ S.68 , 145 ]

Vidya Prakashan Mandir P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 65 ITR 26/ 165 DTR 153 / 194 TTJ 868(Delhi) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment – No return was filed before issue of notice – Un explained deposit in the Bank – Specific information with the AO – Reassessment is held to be valid [ S.148 ]

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v ITO ( 2018) 65 ITR 194/ 194 TTJ 825 /( 2019) 174 DTR 25(Jaipur) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment – Capital gains on sale of land – Sale executed and registered 12-1-2007 – Escapement of capital gains in AY. 2007 -08 -Reopening of assessment for the AY .2006 -07- No nexus between material and the formation of prima facie belief that income had escaped taxation for the AY. 2006 -07 – Reassessment is held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v ITO ( 2018) 65 ITR 194/ 194 TTJ 825/(2019) 174 DTR 25 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Bogus purchases- No tangible material before the AO to come to the conclusion that income has escaped assessment – Reassessment was held to be not valid . Notice based on information from Sales Tax Department that assessee obtained accommodation entries-Recorded reasons have a live link with formation of belief – Failure to disclose primary facts – Reassessment was held to be valid – Matter was remanded to the AO to give fair opportunity of hearing and opportunity of cross examination [ S.148 ]

Ganesh J. Modi v. ACIT (2018) 65 ITR 30 (Mum) (Trib)

S.142(2A): Inquiry before assessment– Special audit– AO not giving any finding about nature and complexity of accounts, volume of accounts, multiplicity of transactions, specialised nature of business activity of assessee —Order being no speaking order for special audit was held to be not valid -Since the direction for special audit was without proper jurisdiction the time so taken could not be counted and the period did not get extended. Since the order was passed on July 28, 2010, it was time barred. Therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer was therefore, bad in law. [ S.153C ]

Sunder Mal Sat Pal v. ITO (2018) 65 ITR 28 (SN) / 169 DTR 175 194 TTJ 981(Chd) (Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price -Exclusion of comparable was held to be justified where ;difference between business model of earning Commission, only providing marketing support services to its head office ,company apart from corporate Advisory Practices also establishing two specialised divisions, Viz., Information Technology and Research activities which is not close to assessee in functionality Company dealing in research and survey Services And Products , Company, functionally different from assessee , no similarity between nature of services rendered by Company Vis-A-Vis Assessee ,diverse nature of services rendered by Company , difference business model of assessee . As regards working capital adjustment is concerned , in sufficient material is available for calculation of working capital adjustment in respect of comparable , AO was directed to compute working capital adjustment in terms of law .

Brown Forman Worldwide LlC India v. DIT (2018) 65 ITR 170 (Delhi) (Trib)

S.68: Cash credit – Deposit of cash in bank- Advance received for sale of land which was deposited in bank and which was returned back due to cancellation of deal- Addition cannot be made as income from undisclosed sources .

Jagdish Narayan Sharma v ITO ( 2018) 65 ITR 194/ 194 TTJ 825 / ( 2019) 174 DTR 25 (Jaipur) (Trib)