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. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Period of limitation has to be strictly followed-Order passed beyond period of limitation prescribed under section 144C(4)(b) of the Act is declared invalid. [S. 144C(4)(b)]

Astro Offshore Pte. Ltd. v. DCIT(IT) (2022) 192 ITD 675 / 215 TTJ 1 / 209 DTR 26 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Condonation of delay-DRP does not have power to condone delay in filing objections by assessee before Panel.

Lam Research (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 449 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Protective assessment-Income from other sources-No substantive addition was made in the other party-Addition was deleted. [S. 56]

ITO v. Keshava Nanda Kakati (2022) 192 ITD 445 (Gauhati) (Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-No direction of Appellate Tribunal to do fresh assessment-Passing remark by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be considered as observation of the Appellate Tribunal. [S. 254(1)]

Jaya Prakash v. ITO (2022) 192 ITD 316 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 120 : Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities-Returned income less than of 30 lakhs-Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer-Assessment made by the Assistant Commissioner is without jurisdiction-Bad in law. [S. 127(1), 143(2), 143(3)]

Anderson Printing House (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 548 (SMC) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Abnormal events-If an extraordinary event has taken place by way of amalgamation in a company, that company cannot be considered as a comparable-.R-elated party transaction of selected company exceeded limit of 25 per cent, said company be excluded from comparable list-turnover of selected company was almost 80 times more than turnover of assessee-company, said company could not be selected as comparable.

Entercoms Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 685 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-High Turnover-Huge intangible addition-Negative working capital-High turnover is a ground for excluding companies as not comparable with a company that has low turnover-Huge intangible assets-Could not be considered for inclusion in list of comparables to software development services provider.-Negative working capital adjustment shall not be made in case of a captive service provider as there is no risk and it is compensated on a total cost plus basis.

Aptean India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 192 ITD 397 / 93 ITR 388 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Turnover-Comparable-Companies having turnover of more than 200 crores upto 500 crores have to be regarded as one category and said companies cannot be regarded as comparables with companies having turnover of less than 200 crores.

Galax E Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 326 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92BA : Transfer pricing-Specified domestic transactions-Interpretation-Omission of provision-Clause (i) of section 92BA being omitted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 1-4-2017 from statute, could not be made applicable in pending proceeding of assessee, and therefore, impugned order passed by TPO invoking such section 92BA(i) was without any basis and bad in law, thus, was liable to be quashed. [S. 40A(2)]

Ammann India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 192 ITD 680 / 93 ITR 49 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Cash payment by purchaser-Sale of agricultural land-Correctness of Ikrarnama-Agreement to sell-Matter remanded.

Naresh Sharma. v. AO (2022) 192 ITD 379 (Chd.)(Trib.)