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. 10AA : Special economic zones – Interest on capital and remuneration-Partnership deed is not providing any interest- AO cannot disallow the interest and remuneration and reduce the eligible exemption .[ S.80IA ]
ACIT v. Mukta Enterprise. (2019) 174 ITD 259 /175 DTR 350 /198 TTJ 374 (Surat) (Trib.)
S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection -Capital gains – Sale of shares- DTAA-India – Spain [ Art .14(6) ]
DCIT v. Merrill Lynch Capital Market. (2019) 174 ITD 226 (Mum)( Trib)
S. 2(22)(e):Deemed dividend- Share holder-Can be assessed only in hands of a person who is a share holder of company and not in hands of a person other than a share holder . [ S.2(32) ]
Microfinish Valves (P.) Ltd. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 199 (Bang) (Trib.)
S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Failure to deal with an argument does not constitute a ‘mistake apparent from the record’ does not apply to a case where a fundamental submission is omitted to be considered by the ITAT- The omission is apparent from the record and should be rectified by the ITAT .The Tribunal ought to have decided the issue of the character of distribution fees, whether royalty or not, as all the facts were available on record before it and the submissions also were made, rather than remanding the issue to the Transfer Pricing Officer. .
Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT( 2019) 411 ITR 447/ 306 CTR 593/ 174 DTR 89(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org
S. 147:Reassessment- With in four years-Intimation- Wrong recording of reasons – order on disposal of objections must deal with the objection- The mere fact that the return is processed u/s 143(1) does not give the AO a carte blanche to issue a reopening notice-.Reassessment notice is quashed [ S.143(1), 148 ]
Ankita A. Choksey v. ITO ( 2019) 411 ITR 207 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Bogus sales and purchases – Dealer in iron and steel- If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment-Reassessment to disallow entire amount is said to be bad in law- There is difference between revisional powers and reassessment . [ S. 68, 69 148, 263 ]
Saurabh Suryakant Mehta v. ITO (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Final order passed by the AO which was sought to be corrected by issue of corrigendum – Time to pass draft assessment order had expired – Order passed was without jurisdiction.[ S.92C, 153A(2A) ]
PCIT v. Lionbridge Technologies ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 100 taxmann.com 413/( 2019) 260 Taxman 273 / 173 DTR 281/ 306 CTR 335 ( Bom) (HC)
S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Finding in case of another assessee- No failure to disclose material facts – Reassessment is not valid. [ S. 80IB(10),148 ]
PCIT v. Vaman Estate (2020) 113 taxmann.com 405 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ; PCIT v. Vaman Estate. (2020) 269 Taxman 196 (SC)
S. 153D : Assessment – Search – Approval – Question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time- Casual and mechanical manner without application of mind – Order is bad in law [ S.143(3),153C ]
PCIT v. Shreelekha Damani ( Smt) ( 2019) 307 CTR 218 / 174 DTR 86( Bom) (HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- Two views possible and also when an appeal is pending before the CIT(A) on particular issue , Commissioner has no power to revise the order regarding that issue – Court also held that , since the matter has been pending for a quite long number of years and there has been repeated orders of assessment , the Court directed the AO to give effect to the of reassessment dt 31-12-2009 , wherein the AO has granted the benefit of S.54F of the Act . [ S.45,54, 54F , 263(1)(c) ]
Renuka Philip( Smt ) v. ITO ( 2018) 409 ITR 567/( 2019) 173 DTR 24 ( Mad) (HC)