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.37(1): Business Expenditure – Commission – Expenditure incurred was reasonably linked with its business which was confirmed by the parties hence allowable as business expenditure
CIT v. Mohan Export India Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 403 ITR 207/162 DTR 247 /253 Taxman 386 (Delhi) (HC)
S. 10(34) :Dividend – Domestic companies – Tax on distribution of profits – Applicable only for amounts which suffered tax u/s 115O does not apply to deemed dividends . [S. 2(22)(e), 115O]
DR. T. J. Jaikish v. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 256 (Ker) (HC)
Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
S. 22A: Appellate Authority- Appellate Authority of four members can hear and decide appeal, in spite of recusal of one of members .
Talluri Srinivas v. UOI (2018) 254 Taxman 261 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 264 : Commissioner – Revision of other orders – Where assessee deliberately avoided availing of regular remedy by way of an appeal against assessment order and just before expiry of prescribed time period, preferred revision same was rightly dismissed by Principal Commissioner .
Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2018) 406 ITR 342 /254 Taxman 357/ 167 DTR 100/ 304 CTR 665 (Karn.)(HC), Editorial : Order of single judge was set aside ,Nataraju (HUF) v. PCIT (2021) 323 CTR 480 / 207 DTR 249 ( Karn ) (HC)
S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal – Powers of President -Power to constitute special Bench is with president , Court will not interfere .
Google India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(IT) (2018) 254 Taxman 228/163 DTR 497 / 302 CTR 276/( 2019) 412 ITR 372 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Once penalty order was set aside by revisional authority, it was thereafter not open for Commissioner (Appeals) to still examine merits of such an order and declare his legal opinion on same. [ S.264,271(1)(c ) ]
Nitin Babubhai Rohit v. Dharmendra Vishnubhai Patel (2018) 409 ITR 276/ 254 Taxman 103 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 245R : Advance rulings – Capital gains- Application for advance ruling could not be rejected merely because it involved computation of capital gains as computation of capital gains is embedded in concept of valuation and question pertained to legal admissibility of transaction and not of any valuation -DTAA-India – Mauritius [ Art 13(4) ]
Worldwide Wickets In, re (2018) 254 Taxman 222/ 166 DTR 326/ 303 CTR 107 (AAR)
S. 234A : Interest – Default in furnishing return of income – Disclosure was made after the search action rejection of application for waiver of interest was held to be justified [ S.119, 132(4), 234B 234C ]
A. Kuberan v. CCIT (2018) 254 Taxman 189 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Pursuant to two orders passed by writ Courts, assessee had deposited 30 per cent of demand and had furnished bank guarantee to extent of 45 per cent of demand. Since interest of revenue stood adequately safeguarded, revenue was not justified in increasing tax demand to 55 per cent of dues .
CIT v. Google India (P.) Ltd. (2018) 254 Taxman 410 /164 DTR 278/ 302 CTR 282 (Karn.)(HC)