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. 132(4) : Search and seizure – Statement on oath-Undisclosed investment-Retraction of statement-Opportunity of cross-examination was not given – Merely on the basis of statement addition is not justified. [S. 69, 132, 260A]

PCIT v. Sanjay Chhabra (2023)453 ITR 516 (Raj)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -Kolkata to Delhi – Opportunity of hearing was given – Transfer for purposes of Co-Ordinated and detailed Investigation -Order of transfer was valid. [S. 127 (2), 132, 133A, Art. 226]

Kamal Nath v. PCIT (NO. 2) (2023)453 ITR 588/ 291 Taxman 532/ 330 CTR 345/ 221 DTR 313 (Cal)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -Kolkata to Delhi -Natural justice – Failure to give an opportunity -Order was set aside.[S. 127(2), 132, 133A, Art, 226]

Kamal Nath v. PCIT (NO. 1) (2023)453 ITR 583 (Cal) (HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -Kolkata to Delhi – Search and seizure -Survey – Opportunity of hearing was given – Transfer for purposes of Co-Ordinated and detailed Investigation -Order of transfer was valid- The assessee has no right to be assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a particular area or locality- An order of transfer is purely in the nature of an administrative order passed for consideration of convenience of the Department and no possible prejudice can be involved when the cases have been transferred [S. 127 (2), 132, 133A Art.226]

Kamal Nath v. PCIT (No. 3) (2023)453 ITR 604 / 292 Taxman 295/ 331 CTR 306/ 223 DTR 73 (Cal)(HC) Editorial : Decision of the Single Judge is affirmed, Kamal Nath v. PCIT (NO. 2) (2023)453 ITR 588/ 291 Taxman 532/ 330 CTR 345/ 221 DTR 313 (Cal)(HC).SLP of assessee is dismissed, Kamal Nath v. PCIT (2023)453 ITR 748/ 292 Taxman 240 (SC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases -SLP dismissed – Observations of High Court to have no reflection on merits.[S. 127(2), 132, 133A Art. 136, 226]

Kamal Nath v. PCIT (2023) 453 ITR 748 / 292 Taxman 240 (SC) Editorial: Kamal Nath v. PCIT (No. 3) (2023) 453 ITR 604 / 292 Taxman 295/ 331 CTR 306/ 223 DTR 73 (Cal)(HC) is affirmed.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price -Adjustment on account of interest-free loans-Libor +2 Per Cent.-Corporate guarantee-Write-off of loss on account of investment in equity shares in subsidiary -Book profits -Provision for doubtful debts -No question of law -Order of High Court affirmed -SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 92B, 115JB, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Vaibhav Global Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 31 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Vaibhav Global Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 24 (Raj)(HC) is affirmed.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price -Support services -Cost plus model -Commission based model- Comparable –Question of fact. [Art. 136, 226]

PCIT v. Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 770 / 292 Taxman 413 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Gap International Sourcing (India) Pvt. Ltd(Delhi)(HC)(ITA No. 531 of 2019 dt 22 -5 2019), is affirmed.

S. 92C : Transfer pricing -Arm’s length price – Reasoned order based on cogent reasons-Order of High Court affirmed -Question of law left open. [S. 136, 260A]

PCIT v. Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 8/ 292 Taxman 155/ 331 CTR 217/ 223 DTR 137 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Evalueserve.Com Pvt. Ltd (2022) 444 ITR 674 (Delhi)(HC) is affirmed.

S. 80IB : Industrial undertakings – derived from – Profits from Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme and Duty Drawback claims- Not income “Derived From” Industrial Undertaking-Not eligible for deduction. [28(iiib), 28(iiic), Art, 136]

Saraf Exports v. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 625 / 293 Taxman 280 / 332 CTR 188 / 224 DTR 277 (SC) Editorial: Decision of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court is affirmed, Saraf Exports v. CIT (Raj)(HC) (ITA No. 7 of 2014 dt 4-2 -2016)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Telecommunication Services Change in shareholding-Block of ten consecutive years-Losses which have lapsed cannot be taken into account for purposes profits of undertaking. [S. 79, 80IA(5)]

ACIT v. Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 755/149 taxmann.com 1 (SC) Editorial: Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd v. ACIT (2020) 424 ITR 498 (Guj)(HC) is affirmed.