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. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – Sufficient funds- Onus is on department to establish nexus between expenditure disallowed and earning of interest income —Deletion of disallowance is held to be justified . [ R.8D ]

CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 159 /( 2019) 308 CTR 682(Delhi) (HC)

S. 10 (23C):Educational institution-Notice issued by authority other than prescribed authority — Order withdrawing approval is held to be invalid.[ S. 10( 23C) (vi),11(5), 13 ]

CIT v. Modern School Society. (2018) 407 ITR 228 /99 Taxmann.com 379 (Raj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT v. Modern School Society ( 2020) 270 Taxman 190/ 114 taxmann.com 587 (SC)

S. 9(1)(i):Income deemed to accrue or arise in India –Business connection-Liaison Offices In India is not permanent establishment — Income directly or indirectly attributable to these branches or offices was not taxable in India- DTAA-India Japan [ Art, 5(6) (E ).]

DIT v. Mitsui And Co. Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 294 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 5 : Scope of total income -Accrual of income — Duty drawback is taxable when income has accrued.[ S.4, 145]

CIT v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 159 /( 2019) 308 CTR 682(Delhi) (HC)

Karnataka VAT Act-Strictures-Court is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the order just ignoring the applicable Notification and throwing it to winds. The said order is nothing less than suffering from malice-in- facts as well as malice-in-law. The responsible officer deserves to pay the exemplary costs of Rs 50000 for passing such whimsical order from her personal resources or by deduction from salary

Kalyani Motors Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner(Audit) VAT Karn)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(c) Penalty-Concealment –No penalty can be imposed where (i) income is added or disallowance is made on estimate basis, (ii) books of account cannot be produced for reasons beyond control, (iii) disallowance is made as per retrospective insertion of S. 37(1) Explanation & (iv) allegation regarding concealment vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars is vague & uncertain. [ S.37(1) ]

Farrukhabad Investment (India) P.Ltd v. DCIT ( TM( Agra) (Trib) .www.itatonline.org.

S. 260A: Appeal – High Court – Transfer pricing disputes with regard to exclusion and inclusion of comparables to determine Arm’s Length Price (ALP) would not necessarily give rise to substantial questions of law except if there is perversity of finding or failure to adhere to the settled principles of law while determining comparables.[ S.92C ]

PCIT v. TIBCO Software(India) Pvt. Ltd ( 2018) 409 ITR 576/305 CTR 482/ 171 DTR 221(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 244 :Refund – Interest on refund -Strictures-The Dept should bring some order and discipline to the aspect of granting refunds. All pending refund applications should be processed in the order in which they are received. It is the bounden duty of the Revenue to grant refunds generated on account of orders of higher forums and disburse the amount expeditiously. In the absence of a clear policy, the Courts may impose interest on the quantum of refund at such rates determined by the Court- Registrar of High Court is directed to forward copy of the order to the PCIT and the Chairperson – Central Board of Direct Taxes.[ S.119 ]

Sicom Ltd. v. DCIT ( Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 9(1)(i): Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – Business connection- Reassessment -A representative assessee represents all income of a non-resident accruing or arising in India directly or indirectly from any business connection in India. It is wrong to contend that the representative assessee is not liable for income which has directly arisen or accrued in India. It is also wrong that if the department chooses to make an assessment of the person resident outside India directly, it cannot assess the agent or representative assessee. The Dept has the choice of proceeding against either- Order of Tribunal is set aside [ S.5, 147,148, 160,163

DIT v. Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka Through PILCOM ( 2018) 259 Taxman 6/ 305 CTR 965/ 172 DTR 325(Cal)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Disclosure in computation – The fact that the AO did not raise specific queries and is silent in the assessment order does not mean there is no application of mind – Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.143(3),148 ]

State Bank of India v. ACIT ( 2018) 172 DTR 401 /96 taxmann.com 77/ ( 2019) 411 ITR 664 (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org