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. 132 : Search and seizure-Illegal search-Karta of HUF had initiated litigation against alleged illegal search action of department on HUF at relevant time, a member of HUF individually could not restart same litigation long many years after cause of action had arisen. [S. 158BC, Art. 226]

Alay Rakesh Shah v. DIT (2018) 259 Taxman 189 (Guj)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Adjustment of interest-Foreign subsidiary-Corporate guarantee-Loan to Associated Enterprises- Delay in realizing sale proceeds from Associated Enterprises – Adjustment should be made at average LIBOR rate existing at that time, i.e., at 0.79 per cent, instead of LIBOR +2 per cent. [S. 92B]

CIT v. Vaibhav Gems Ltd ( 2017) 88 taxmann.com 12 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, CIT v. Vaibhav Gems Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 130 (SC)

S. 69C : Un explained expenditure-Cash payments-Slips found during search-Since there was no material to substantiate assumption that slips denoted amounts outside cash book of assessee, addition was held to be not justified. [S. 132]

CIT v. Ansal Properties & Industries. (2018) 259 Taxman 103 /170 DTR 225/( 2019) 308 CTR 510(Delhi) (HC)

S. 69 : Undisclosed investment -Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is held to be appreciation of evidence -No substantial question of law. [S. 260A ]

CIT v. Lodha Builders. (2018) 259 Taxman 87 (Raj)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed,CIT v. Lodha Builders. (2018) 259 Taxman 86 (SC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments–Cash payments-diary seized from sister concern -Since no other evidence was recorded during search nor concerned person against whose name entry in diary appeared was examined, said addition was to be deleted. [S. 132(4)]

CIT v. Ansal Properties & Industries. (2018) 259 Taxman 103/170 DTR 225/( 2019) 308 CTR 510 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits- Bank details and other particulars were furnished–Merely on the basis of report addition cannot be made -Deletion of addition is held to be justified. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (2018) 99 taxmann.com 44 259 Taxman 132 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ,PCIT v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 131 (SC)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Business income-Sale of shares-Only 10 scripts-Assessable as capital gains. [S. 28(i)]

CIT v. Hiren Dand v. CIT (2018) 259 Taxman 82 / 98 taxmann.com 427 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed; CIT v. Hiren Dand (2018) 259 Taxman 81 (SC)

S. 40A(3) : Expenses or payments not deductible – Cash payments exceeding prescribed limits-Payment made to notified dealer- District Supply Officer’s order did not mandate any mode of payment either in cash or by cheque, and, moreover, there were banking channels available even when supplies had been effected, impugned disallowance was rightly made by authorities. [S. 260A, R.6DD]

Madhav Govind Dhulshete. v. ITO (2018) 259 Taxman 149 (Bom.)(HC )

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure–Capital or revenue-Encashment of bank guarantee -Failure to perform its part of concessionaire agreement, DTC encashed bank guarantee-Allowable as revenue expenditure.

PCIT v. Green Delhi BQS Ltd. (2018) 259 Taxman 153 / ( 2019) 175 DTR 131(Delhi) (HC)

S. 36(1)(iii) : Interest on borrowed capital- Interest free loans to subsidiaries – Advance to sister concern for business purposes – Allowable as deduction.

PCIT v. Reebok India Company (2018) 259 Taxman 100 (Delhi)(HC)