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. 72 : Carry forward and set off of business losses – Dividend – where investments were business investments, carried forward business loss could be set off against dividend income earned from such business investment as even though dividend was classified under separate head, but same was very much part of income from business.[ S.56 ]

CIT v. Shriram Chits & Investments (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 395/(2019) 410 ITR 10 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Search-Work in progress-Valuation report of site engineer higher than work -in- progress recorded in the books of account -Addition is held to be not valid [ S. 69A,132 ]

CIT v. B.G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 561/ 172 DTR 28 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed PCIT v. B. G. Shirke Construction Technology (P.) Ltd ( 2019) 265 Taxman 543 (SC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Survey- Undisclosed stock -When undisclosed purchases are discovered- Only profit embedded in transaction can be added as income .[ S. 4, 133A, 145 ]

PCIT v. Subarna Rice Mill (2018) 257 Taxman 509 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed due to low tax effect ,PCIT v. Subarna Rice Mill ( 2020 ) 269 Taxman 565 (SC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account –Survey- Suppression of sales – Sale suppression detected during survey was actual price for which liquor was sold, addition made on account of sale suppression is held to be justified .[ S.133A ]

CIT v. Archana Trading Co. (2018) 257 Taxman 386 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 69B : Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account – Survey -Merely on the basis of statement in the course of survey offering additional income -Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.133A ]

CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd( 2018) 96 taxmann.com 279 ( Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ;CIT v. Mantri Share Brokers (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 337 (SC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Deposit from dealers and agents – Merely because there was a permission granted under Companies Act to accept deposits from public, it did not necessarily follow that deposits shown by assessee were really those received from members of public or from agents- Matter remanded.

CIT v. Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd. (2018) 409 ITR 624/ 257 Taxman 566 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Shares -Unsecured loans – Assessee had discharged its onus of establishing identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of both investors as well as lenders- Deletion of addition is held to be justified .

PCIT v. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 390 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Hi-Tech Residency (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 335 (SC)

S.45: Capital gains- Transfer- Development agreement not registered- General Power of attorney- Possession of property was given to the developer for specific purposes to develop the property- The development agreement clearly provides that nothing contained in the agreement shall be construed as grant of possession in part performance of the agreement under S. 2(47)(v), and 2(47)(vi) of the Act. Accordingly addition of Rs 55 crores as full value of consideration for computing the capital gains is rightly deleted by the Tribunal – Taxability will be examined in the year in which the transfer of land as stock in trade has taken place and also value at that point of time will be examined independently . [ S.2(47)(v), 2(47)(vi) 45(2) ]

PCIT v. Fardeen Khan L/H Late Firoz Khan ( 2018) 169 DTR 209/ 304 CTR 299/258 Taxman 348 /( 2019) 411 ITR 533 ( Bom)(HC)

S. 45: Capital gains- Individual or HUF- Sale deed was executed in individual capacity and PAN of the individual-Sale consideration was also not deposited in the HUF’ Bank account-Assessing the capital gains in the assessment of the assessee is held to be justified [ S.4 ]

Janak Kanakbhai Trivedi v. ITO (2018) 257 Taxman 367 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage – Selling expenses which consisted of target incentives to distributors -Not liable to deduct tax at source- No disallowance can be made .[ S.194H ]

PCIT v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 590 (Cal.) (HC)