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. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Allowability of interest -Assessing officer taking plausible view after proper enquiry — Order is not erroneous and cannot be revised. [ S.57(iii)]

Micro Inks Limited v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 681 (Guj) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Question of Law — Interpretation of document is question of law —Amount received by assessee under non-compete agreement constitute capital receipt . [ S.4 ]

V. C. Nannapaneni. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 505 / 305 CTR 625/ 171 DTR 337(T&AP) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties-Business income or capital gains- Investment in shares- The entire data of each transaction was before the Tribunal and nothing prevented it from looking into all the transactions and recording findings of fact-The Tribunal had failed to perform its duty and therefore, its order was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. [ S. 28( i), 45 ]

Jaya Chheda, Legal Heir of Late Hitesh S. Bhagat. v. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 553 (Bom) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission -Finding of failure by assessee to make true disclosure of undisclosed income — The limited jurisdiction of judicial review while examining the correctness of the order of the Settlement Commission is a well settled principle- Rejection of application is held to be justified. [ S.245C ]

Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel. v. ITSC (2018) 405 ITR 270 (Guj) (HC)

S. 244 :Refunds – Interest on refunds – Time of accrual — Assessment on 22-3-1991 — Interest on refund granted on 9-10-2002 — Interest is not assessable in Assessment Year.

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 249/ 171 DTR 254 (Ker) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Stay- Pendency of appeal- Circular by Central Board Of Direct Taxes that 15 Per Cent. of disputed demand to be deposited for stay — Permits decrease or even increase in percentage of disputed tax demand to be deposited — Requirement reduced to 7.5 Per Cent. On Further condition of security for remaining tax in dispute .

Ashokbhai Jagubhai Kheni v. DCIT (2018) 405 ITR 179 / 258 Taxman 275 (Guj) (HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source – Failure to deduct or pay- Interest is automatic — Genuine belief that tax was not deductible at source is not relevant – Extra payment to meet costs constitute perquisites- Extra payment to meet costs in Foreign location is not entitled to exemption- Failure to deduct tax and deposit to Govt interest can be Levied- Unlike S.221 , S. 201(1A) is not hedged in by any requirement such as good faith or wilful default. Therefore, for levying interest, mens rea or wilful conduct is wholly irrelevant.[ S. 15, 10(14) , 17 , 192 , 221 ]

Sun Outsourcing Solutions P. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 480/ 171 DTR 358/ 305 CTR 537 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 158BC : Block assessment -Undisclosed income — Amount surrendered in the course of survey- Merely on the basis of statement in the course of search or survey addition cannot be made, if the assesseee is able to explain the differences- Actual concealment was less than the amount surrendered -Deletion on the basis of explanation is held to be valid . [ S. 132,133A ]

CIT v. S. K. D. New Standard Coaching Institute (2018) 407 ITR 529 (All) (HC)

S.147:Reassessment —Subsequent receipt of tax evasion report from Investigation Wing of Income-Tax Department — Notice After Considering Report —Notice is valid – Error in name of the assessee in notice – Reply by assessee- Human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which are otherwise valid and no prejudice had been caused- No prejudice to the assessee – Notice cannot be invalidated [ S. 143(1), 148, 292B ]

Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment — Client code modification -Information from investigation wing regarding evasion of tax by assessee —Notice is held to be valid .[ S. 133A,148 ]

Rakesh Gupta v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 213 / 303 CTR 670/167 DTR 265/101 CCH 318 (P&H) (HC)