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-real income theory-application of income-diversion of income by overriding title- Distributable Surplus paid is application of income and not allowable as business expenditure- Payment made did not amount to “diversion of income at source by overriding title” – Income from business of manufacture and sale of Liquor will be taxable in the hands of the Assessee by applying the principle of real income theory-Appeal of revenue was allowed . [ S.4, 28(i), 29,145 ]

PCIT v. Chamundi Winery and Distillery ( 2018)408 ITR 402/ 171 DTR 1/ 305 CTR 337 (Karn)(HC),www.itatonline.org

Co-operative Housing Society -A co-operative housing Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from its members. Transfer fees cannot be charged under the pretext of “voluntary donation”.-Amount which is accepted above permissible limits towards transfer fee is illegal and taxable as income in the hands of the society- Amount collected was directed to be returned with simple interest @ 8%.

Alankar Sakhari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit v. Atul Mahadev Bhagat (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: Observation regarding the taxability in the hands of the Society is not good law in view of judgment of Apex Court in ITO v. Venkatesh Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd ( 2018) 402 ITR 670 (SC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay – Alleged bogus purchases -During pendency of stay the criminal prosecution should not be launched and, if it has been already launched, the same shall not proceeded.[S.246 ]

Ramchandran Ananthan Pothi v UOI ( Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information –When conduct of the assessee is not bonafide , levy of penalty for non compliance of S.131(IA) is held to be valid.[S. 131(1), 131(IA), 133(6)]

Young Indian v. ADIT( 2018) 169 DTR 382/ 195 TTJ 584 ( Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty- Concealment-Appeal-If appeals with reference to the quantum proceedings have been admitted by the Court on substantial questions of law, it means that there were debatable and arguable questions raised and levy of penalty is not justified . Penalty also cannot be levied if the claim was as per judicial precedents prevalent at the time of filing the ROI. Also, there must be a finding that the details supplied by the assessee in its return were incorrect or erroneous or false.

PCIT v. Dhariwal Industries Ltd ( 2018) 170 DTR 1 / 304 CTR 870(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage -The incentive paid by the dealers to sub-dealers cannot be equated with commission – Not liable to deduct tax at source- Revision is held to be bad in law .[ S.194H ]

Rakesh Kumar v. CIT ( Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –It is obligates the CIT to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of order-While the CIT is entitled to consider a point which is not stated in the show-cause notice, he cannot pass the revision order unless the assessee is given the opportunity of being heard- Such an order is untenable in the eyes of law .

Ambuja Cements Limited v. CIT ( 2018) 67 ITR 9 ( SN) (Mum)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 206C : Collection at source – Trading -Limitation-Order passed beyond limit of four years is bad in law -Though Section does not impose any limitation period for the AO to hold the assessee to be in default for collection of tax at source, a reasonable time limit of four years has to be read into the statute- Orders passed after this period are beyond the limitation and are void-The fact that the Dept became aware of the default later is irrelevant. The fact that the assessee admitted his liability is also irrelevant- Assessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.191, 201 ]

ITO v.EID Mohammad Nizamuddin (2018) 172 ITD 448 / 196 TTJ 232( 2019) 173 DTR 156( Jaipur) ( Trib) www.itatonline.org .

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Allotment of shares- less than fair market value of shares –Reasons recorded on the basis of letter from Department of Investigation and tax evasion petition- Failure to disclose material facts as regards issue of shares to the assessee at a price less than Fair Market Value – Reassessment is valid . [ S. 56(2)(vii) 143(1) 143(3), 148 , 151, Companies Act , 1956 S.299 ]

Sonia Gandhi v. ACIT ( 2018) 407 ITR 594/ 257 Taxman 515/ 170 DTR 57/ 304 CTR 561 (Delhi)(HC),www.itatonline.org/Rahul Gandhi v. ACIT ( 2018) 407 ITR 594/ 257 Taxman 515/ 170 DTR 57/ 304 CTR 561 (Delhi)(HC),www.itatonline.org /Rahul Gandhi v. ACIT ( 2018) 407 ITR 594/ 257 Taxman 51/ 170 DTR 57/ 304 CTR 5615 (Delhi)(HC),www.itatonline.org/Oscar Fernandes v. ACIT ( 2018) 407 ITR 594/ 257 Taxman 515 / 170 DTR 67 / 304 CTR 561 (Delhi)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 68:Cash credits- Capital gains-Penny stocks-Reliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE v.Andaman Timber Industries ( 2015 ) 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc- Addition cannot be made as cash credits.[ S.10 (38),45,115BBE ]

DCIT v. Saurabh Mittal (Jaipur) ( 2018) 172 DTR 291/ 196 TTJ 61 (Trib),www.itatonline.org