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. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Functional analysis-Re seller-Performing marketing support service-Foreign exchange gains-Other grounds-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for Re adjudication. [S. 251]
Dy. CIT v. MSC Software Corporation India P. Ltd.(2023) 146 taxmann.com 273/(2024)116 ITR 684 (Pune)(Trib)
S. 92BA : Transfer pricing-Specified domestic transaction-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-Excluded from definition with effect from 1-4-2017-Omission has retrospective effect-Addition is deleted. [S.40A(2)(b)]
Asiatic Colour Chem Ind. Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2024)116 ITR 7 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)
S. 80HHC : Export-Manufacturing and letting out vacuum insulated tanks and related products-Lease rent-Business income-Eligible for deduction-Deduction not to be allowed on profits to extent deduction already allowed under Section 8OIA of the Act.
Inox India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2024)116 ITR 53 (SN)/ 169 taxmann.com 118 (Ahd)(Trib)
S. 80G : Donation-Mentioning wrong section code-Error typographical and inadvertent-Remanded to Commissioner (E) to treat application under proper section code-Circular No. 7 Of 2024, Dated 25-4-2024 (2024) 463 ITR 14(St). [S.80G(5), Form No 10B].
Help for Children in Need Foundation v. CIT (E) (2024)116 ITR 83 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)
S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Information from Investigation Wing-Purchase transaction is duly explained with supporting evidences-Addition is deleted-Reassessment issue is left open. [S. 147, 148]
Jindal Drugs P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024)116 ITR 65 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)
S. 69A : Unexplained money-Remand report-Single percentage of Commission for both receipts is not p roper-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to reconsider issue and apply appropriate rate for estimation of income. [S. 147,148]
Surkunti Narayana Reddy v. ITO (2024)116 ITR 75 (SN) (Hyd) (Trib)
S. 69A : Unexplained money-Un explained expenditure-Search and Seizure-Fixed deposit receipts in name of wife-Addition is deleted-Amount spent on marriage-Addition on estimate basis-Restricted to 60% per cent of estimated amount-Personal expenditure-No incriminating material is found-Rental payment-Estimation of rent for 18 months-Payment of advance tax-Not able to explain the source-Addition is justified-Overseas Trip expenses and investment in benefit fund-Failure to show the source of investment-Addition is justified-Bank deposits-Seized passbook-Incriminating material-Addition is justified-Payments towards transponder hire, purchase of allied equipment, uplinking facility, and telecom service provider-No evidence of payment-addition is deleted-Bills found in Assessee’s name remanded for re-examination-Imported car-Gift-Denied by alleged gift giver-Matter remanded to determine real owner-Seizure of cash gold and silver article from premises of uncle-Assessment is bad in law [S. 132, 153C, 158BC]
V. Bhaskaran v. ACIT (2024)116 ITR 135 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Appellate Tribunal-Cross appeal or cross objection-Right of assessee to support order on issue decided against him-Survey-Statement has no evidentiary value-Source of payment-Assessing Officer cannot ignore the registered document-Transaction pertaining to eight years prior to assessment year-Addition is deleted-Marriage expenses of son-expenditure recorded in books of assessee’s wife’s proprietary concern-Deletion is affirmed-Telescoping benefits to additional income and undisclosed outgoings. [S. 69C 131, 133A (3)(iii), 254(1), ITAT R. 27]
ACIT v. Naresh Jain (2024)116 ITR 307 (Jaipur)(Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Long term capital gains-Information from Investigation Wing-Penny stock-Accommodation entries-Purchase in the year 2010-11-No sale during the year-Transaction cannot be assessed as bogus-Failure to mention section in the notice u/s 143(2)-Assessment order is defective-Credit for tax deduction at source-Issue is not adjudicated by Commissioner (Appeals)-The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the claim. [S. 45, 143(2), 143(3)]
Uttam Das v. ITO (2024)116 ITR 55 (SN)(Kol)(Trib)