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(4): Search and Seizure – Statement on oath – Statement was made on oath by the Managing Partner of a firm that the income returned was less than the actual, and which was not retracted in a reasonable period of time, the addition made by the AO of the undisclosed income was sustainable. [ S.132 ]
Alhind Builders v. DCIT (2018) 63 ITR 6 (SN)(Cochin) ( Trib))
S. 127 : Power to transfer cases – An order passed after the search and seizure operation cannot confer jurisdiction to the AO, if particulars of the assessee including its name, status, address, PAN and AO before whom it was originally being assessed were not correctly mentioned and also no opportunity of being heard was given – Such defects cannot be said to be technical in nature and are not curable u/s. 292B of the Act. [ S.292B ]
ACIT v. Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. ((2018) 165 DTR 93 /193 TTJ 256 (Agra ) (Trib.)
S. 80IC: Special category states – Where no investigations or special exercise was done to shown that the amount claimed as deduction was actually incurred, the claim of the assesee could not be disallowed.
ACIT v. Micro Turners (2018) 63 ITR 13 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib.)
S.153D:Assessment – Search and seizure – The requisite for approval for assessment from JCIT is mechanical and not proper i.e. given without due application of mind, the assessment order is held to be bad in law . [ S.153A]
ACIT v. Shyam Lal Bansal & Ors. (2018) 164 DTR 185 (Jodhpur ) (Trib.)
S. 153A: Assessment – Search- No addition can be made merely on the basis of statement recorded at the time of search without any corroborative evidence found against the assessee. [ S.132(4) ]
Rajiv Gulati v. ACIT (2018) 62 ITR 7 (Delhi) ( Trib.)
S. 153D : Assessment – Search – Approval – Exercise was carried out by the joint CIT in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned assessments are suffering from the incurable defect of improper approval and are annulled.[ S.153A ]
ACIT v. Shyam Lal Bansal . (2018) 192 TTJ 968/164 DTR 185 (Jodhpur)(Trib.)/Indra Bansal v. ACIT (2018) 164 DTR 185 / 192 TTJ 968 (Jodhpur)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – If draft assessment order has not been passed in accordance with procedure laid down in S. 144C(1) and instead final assessment order has been passed though within limitation time, then such an order cannot be cured after limitation has expired by any subsequent rectification proceedings or corrigendum and in such a situation all subsequent proceedings and final assessment order will get invalidated [ S.92C ]
Oracle India (P) Ltd. (2018)162 DTR 188 (Delhi)( Trib)
S. 153A : Assessment – Search or requisition – No incriminating material found during the course of search to doubt the transaction – Additions cannot be made. [ S.132 ]
Dingle Buildcon P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 62 ITR 161 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 153 : Assessment – Limitation – AO is required to pass the assessment order within the period of limitation available under S. 153(2A) of the Act. [ S.153(2A) ]
Bechtel India (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2018) 191 TTJ 280 (Delhi)(Trib.)