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. 68: Cash credits- Bogus share capital- If the AO has remained silent with folded hands and has not made any independent inquiry from the concerned AO of share holder company and has not controverted the evidence produced by the assessee, that itself is sufficient to knock off the addition made. The fact that there is no personal appearance from director of said cash creditor (share holder) does not mean that an adverse inference u/s 68 can be drawn by the AO without the AO discharging the secondary burden lying upon him .

Moti Adhesives Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Return- There is no bar / restriction that an assessee cannot file a revised return of income after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). A revised return of income can be filed even in course of the assessment proceedings provided the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is available. The Departmental Authorities are not expected to deny assessee’s legitimate claim of deduction by raising technical objection- Exemption claimed in revised return was directed to be allowed . [ S.139(5) 143(2) ]

Mahesh H. Hinduja v. ITO ( 2018) 171 ITD 471 / 171 DTR 12/ 195 TTJ 1068(Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Territorial jurisdiction – Stay-Location of Assessing Officer, at point of time when Tribunal hears and determines case, is relevant for determining jurisdiction of Bench to hear stay/appeals- Registry was directed to place matter before President to take final call on issue, hence the Registry was directed to place matter before President for final decision on transfer of assesee’s case to Delhi Benches . [ S. 127, ITATR, 4 ]

Vedanta Ltd. v. ADIT ( IT) (2018) 170 ITD 652/ 166 DTR 129/193 TTJ 905 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax – Remission or cessation of trading liability –Amount not written back sundry creditors in his profit and loss account and had shown balance outstanding towards those creditors cannot be added as income .

Jashojit Mukherjee. v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 701 /195 TTJ 697 (Kol) (Trib.)

S.40(a)(ia):Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source –Labour charges – Payee had shown the amount as income in his hand hence no disallowance could be made .[ S.194C, 201 (1)]

Jashojit Mukherjee. v. ACIT (2018) 170 ITD 701 //195 TTJ 697(Kol) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(viia) :Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts – Schedule bank – Rural or Non Rural advances – Entitled for deduction subject to upper limit of deduction laid down in said section- Matter remanded .

ACIT v. Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank. (2018) 170 ITD 668/ 66 ITR 31 (SN) (Visakh) (Trib.)

S. 36(1)(viia) :Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts – Schedule bank – Provision for standard assets is purely contingent hence cannot be allowed as deduction.

ACIT v. Chaitanya Godavari Grameena Bank. (2018) 170 ITD 668/66 ITR 31 (Visakh) (Trib.)

S. 35 :Scientific research – Deduction on account of purchase of ‘assets’ for its in-house R&D facility is allowable as deduction. Objective behind exclusion clause in S. 43(4)(ii) is to be that expenditure on scientific research should be incurred on research actually carried out by assessee in-house and assessee should not spend money in acquiring rights in or arising out of scientific research carried on by some other person. [ S.35(1)(iv) , 43(4)(ii) ]

Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 720 / 65 ITR 86( SN)(Bang) (Trib.)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income –Sufficient interest free own funds to cover investment in shares and mutual funds etc –No disallowance can be made [ R.8D(2)(ii) ]

Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 170 ITD 720 /65 ITR 86 (SN)(Bang) (Trib.)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Advance of loan to another trust where the common trustees had no substantial interest and advance not being investment there is no violation hence exemption cannot be denied and registration cannot be refused .[ S.10(23C)(vi),13(1)(d) ]

Puran Chand Dharmarth Trust. v. ITO (2018) 170 ITD 687/ 168 DTR 1 / 194 TTJ 643/ 64 ITR 50 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib.)