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. 194J : Deduction of tax at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Payments to contract teachers-Remuneration did not exceed Rs .5 lakhs-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S.87A]

Dist. Intermediate Educational Office v. ITO (TDS) [2023] 201 ITD 74 (Hyd)(Trib.)

S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Educational institute-Monthly remuneration to guest faculties-Contract for service-Below taxable limit on individual basis-Not liable to deduct tax at source.[S. 201(1), 201(IA)]

Government Polytechnic Education Society v. ITO (TDS) (2023) 200 ITD 134 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 194IA : Deduction at source-Immoveable property-Real estate-Percentage Completion method-Tax deducted by buyer at the time of execution of deed-Assessee to produce certificates to substantiate tax deducted on income offered in earlier or current year-AO is directed to carry out necessary verification-Matter remanded.[S. 145, 198,199]

Neelkanth Developers v .ADIT (2023)101 ITR 44 (SN) (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 194I : Deduction at source-Rent-TDS credit cannot be denied to assessee HUF as a consequence of wrong PAN mentioned in the sale deed mistakenly, when corresponding capital gain on relevant transaction was taxed in the assessee HUF’s name .[S.199 Rule 37BA(2)]

Anant Singhania HUF v. ITO (2023) 202 ITD 46/ 226 TTJ 430 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 194C : Deduction at source-Contractors-Common area maintenance charges-,Paid to malls-Tax deductable 2 percent under section 194C and not 10 %.[S. 194I]

Aero Club v. DCIT [2023] 200 ITD 318 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 194A : Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Assessee in default-The tax deducted was deposited-The assessee could not be treated as assessee in default under section 201(1)-The assessee would be liable to pay interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act. [S. 201(1) 201(IA)]

Wayanad District Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (TDS) (2023) 200 ITD 500 (Cochin)(Trib)

S. 192: Deduction at source-Salary-Difference between sums reported in 26AS and sums reported by assessee-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer. [Form 26AS]

Panasonic Holdings Corporation v. Dy. CIT (2023)101 ITR 5 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Capital gains-Compensation for compulsory acquisition of commercial land from National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)-Clarificatory circular was issued by CBDT subsequent to the date of filing return-Eligible to file rectification application, claim of exemption of assessee under RFCTLARR Act was directed to be allowed by the AO. [S. 45, 56(2)(viii),139, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 S.96]

Satish Kumar v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 694 (Chd)(Trib) Urmila Garg (Smt.) v. ITO (2023)104 ITR 694 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-First appeal was dismissed-Second appeal-Abuse of process of Court-Appeal is dismissed.[S. 80IB,253]

Kishor Shankar Garve v. Dy. CIT (2023) 200 ITD 461 (Pune)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Capital or revenue-Excise duty refund and Interest subsidy as revenue receipts-Rectification application pursuant to jurisdictional High Court-Tribunal held that CIT(A) is right in directing AO to carry out necessary rectification. [S. 4]

DCIT v. Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills (2023) 104 ITR 684 (Amritsar) (Trib)