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. 197 : Deduction at source – Certificate for lower rate –Wrong averment in the petition- The petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition and granted liberty to file a fresh petition on payment of cost of Rs. 75,000. Court observed that ; any party who approaches the court seeking a prerogative writ in extraordinary writ jurisdiction, must come with clean hands. The least that is expected of a petitioner is that he would not misstate or misrepresent or suppress material facts or indulge in suppressio veri. The petition should reveal utmost good faith. The petitioner must ensure that every statement made in the petition, which is a sworn statement, is correct and honest. In case a party breaches this basic obligation, the court is duty-bound to dismiss the petition to ensure that the process of court is not abused by dishonest litigants. [ Art. 226 ]

Vodafone India Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2018) 407 ITR 353 (Bom) (HC)

S. 163 : Representative assessees – Non-Resident — Transfer of shares in Foreign Country by non-resident company — No evidence that assessee was party to transfer — Notice seeking to treat assessee as agent of non-resident is not valid- High Court has power to quash show-cause notice . [ S. 160, 161, 162 , Art. 226]

Wabco India Limited. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 317/ 258 Taxman 218/ 172 DTR 297 / 305 CTR 894 (Mad) (HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue , Dy.CIT v Wabco India Ltd ( 2019) 265 Taxman 557 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Notice based on the audit objection is not valid .[ S.148 ]

CIT v. Gmr Holdings P. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 439 (Karn) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-No failure to disclose truly all material facts- Re examination of claim on the basis of breach of condition for claiming deduction in another assessment year is not valid .[ S.80IB(10), 148 ]

Royal Infrastructure. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 358 (Guj) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Survey – Return filed in response to notice u/s 148 was accepted by t6he Assessing Officer after disallowance of certain expenses- No new material or information- Reopening is bad in law. [ S.133A, 148 ]

Jalil Abdulbhai Shaikh. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 418/ 254 Taxman 26 (Guj) (HC)Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed Dy.CIT v.Jalil Abdulbhai Shaikh( 2019) 261 Taxman 2 (SC)

S. 80IA :Industrial undertakings –No requirement that Industrial Park should be operational before stipulated time — Refusal of approval because it was not operational is held to be not valid- The order and notification, withdrawing the earlier notification of 2007 was quashed.

Finest Promoters Pvt. Ltd v. UOI(2018) 407 ITR 308 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 47(xiii) : Capital gains – Transaction not regarded as transfer – Conversion of firm in to company – Allotment of shares to erstwhile partners of the firm after three and half years- Exemption is not entitled . [ S.45, 47A]

CIT v. Prakash Electric Company. (2018) 407 ITR 340/ 305 CTR 954 (Karn) (HC)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source –Commission – Principal to principal – Discount to advertisement agency – Not liable to deduct tax at source –No disallowance can be made . [ S.194H ]

PCIT v. Bhim Sain Garg Through Legal Heir Shailendra Garg. (2018) 407 ITR 388 (Raj) (HC) PCIT v. Shailendra Garg (2018) 407 ITR 388 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. Bhim Sain Garg Through Legal Heir Shailendra Garg. ( 2018) 406 ITR 9 (St).

S.36(1)(iii): Interest on borrowed capital- Advances were made out of interest free funds available with assessee -Allowable as deduction .

PCIT v. Holy Faith International P. Ltd ( 2018) 407 ITR 445 ( P& H) (HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Rule 8D is prospective in operation and is not applicable in assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07.[ R.8D ]

CIT v. Jammu Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 362 (J&K) (HC)