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. 28(i) : Business loss-Interest on NPAs-Accrual basis-Interest on NPAs was rightly taxed by the Revenue-Guidelines of RBI binding on Banking Companies-Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. [S. 36(1)(vii), 43D, 119,260A, Reserve Bank of India, Banking Regulation Act, 1949, S. 21]

State Bank of Hyderabad v. Jt. CIT (2023) 458 ITR 79/ 292 Taxman 526 / 335 CTR 304 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration-Trust or institution-Commencement stage-Only has to examine whether the object of the Trust is charitable or not-Order of Tribunal directing to grant the registration is affirmed.[S. 2(15), 11]

DIT(E) v. She Foundation (2023) 292 Taxman 216 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Accumulation of income-Revenue cannot insist on a copy of resolution being furnished regarding amount being accumulated for charitable activities. [S. 11(2), R. 17(2), Form No.10]

CIT v. Paradeep Port Trust (2023) 292 Taxman 347 (Orissa) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Transfer of rights-Value of any benefit or perquisites-Business income-Transfer is genuine-Set off credit-No evidence-Deletion of addition is valid. [S. 28(iv)]

CIT v. Tube Investments of India Ltd. (2023) 292 Taxman 465 (SC) CIT v. Tube Investments of India (P.) Ltd. (2023) 292 Taxman 546 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Tube Investments of India Ltd (2022) 446 ITR 676/ 288 Taxman 524 (Mad)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Advances to directors-Joint owner of property-Advance to be adjusted for sale consideration-Matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. [S. 254(1)]

Rinku Chakraborthy (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2023) 292 Taxman 353 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Unsecured loan from company-Partner of firm shareholder-Dividend is taxable in hands of Individual and not in the name of firm-Remand by the Tribunal is set aside. [S. 254(1)]

Mahimananda Mishra v. ACIT (2023)455 ITR 449/292 Taxman 49 (Orissa)(HC)

Right to Information Act, 2005

S.8: Exemption from disclosure of information- Donation – CBDT- Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust- CPIO having made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief, order shall remain stayed till next hearing and no coercive steps shall be taken against CPIO, pursuant to same . [ S.8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) , 11, 19(4)(ii), Income -tax Act , 1961 , S.80G(2)(b) , 119 , 138, Art.226 ]

Central Public Information Officer v. Kailash Chandra Moondra (2023) 292 Taxman 385 (Delhi)(HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 .

S.50: Punishment for failure to furnish return of income –Information about an asset – located outside India – Punishment for wilful attempt to evade tax – Foreign asset – Prosecution – Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) – Criminal provision of sections 50 and 51 could not have a retrospective effect – Stay of criminal proceedings- Notice was issued to Advocate General regarding petition filed by petitioner and stay granted earlier to be extended till next date of hearing . [ S. 51 , Income -tax Act , 1961 , S.276C , Art . 226 ]

Anil Dhirajlal Ambani v. UOI (2023) 292 Taxman 17 (Bom.)(HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 .

S. 41 :Penalty in relation to undisclosed foreign income and asset – Penalty for failure to furnish in return of income, an information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India -Pendency of appeal – Directed to hear the assessee and pass the order after considering the submission of the assessee . [ S. 15, 42 , 43 , Art. 226 ]

Periyasamy Ramesh Rajah v. Addl. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 381/ 292 Taxman 551 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident – Reimbursement of mobilisation and demobilisation costs to a foreign company – Subsequently the foreign company was held liable to tax in India – Not liable to deduct tax at source – Cannot be treated as assessee -in -default – DTAA -India – Netherlands .[ S. 9(1)(vi), 195, Art. 12, Art. 136 ]

Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT ( 2023) 453 ITR 214 / 292 Taxman 405/ 226 DTR 89 / 332 CTR 310(SC) Editorial : Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT ( 2010) 323 ITR 130/ 189 Taxman 232 ( Delhi)( HC) , para 4 is set aside .