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. 115BBE : Tax on specified income-Search-Unexplained expenditure-Diagnostic Centre-Additional income offered as business income-Referral fees-Unaccounted expenditure-additional income cannot be taxed at special rate-Current years loss is allowed to be set off-Reasons recorded cannot be based on conjectures and surmises. [S. 69C, 153A]
Ragavs Diagnostic and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)99 ITR 15 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)
S.115BBE : Tax on specified income-Cash credits-Collection found recorded in notebook pertaining to business-Directed to be treated as business income and not as cash credits [S. 68, 69 69A, 69B]
Harish Sharma v. ITO (2022) 215 TTJ 267 /(2024)113 ITR 229/(2021) 207 DTR 475 (Chd)(Trib)
S. 115BBC : Anonymous donations-Details of donors with names address and confirmation letters provided-Mere absence of PAN the donations cannot be assessed as anonymous donations.[S. 13]
ACIT v. Siddhartha Academy of General & Technical education (2022) 216 DTR 203 / 218 TTJ 899/ 141 taxmann.com 287 (Vishakha)(Trib).
S. 92CA : Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Guidelines issued by CBDT-Adjustment of more than 10 crores or more-No adjustment of more than 10 crores in the case of assessee-Reference made to TPO not valid-Subsequent order passed by TPO not sustainable-[S. 92C]]
Rittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (LTU) (2022)97 ITR 30 (SN) (Bang) (Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Bright Line Test (BLT) AMP expenses-TPO was not justified in holding that by incurring AMP expenditures assessee had promoted brand and marketing intangible of its overseas AE and, thus, it had to be treated as international transaction. [S. 92B]
Whirlpool of India Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 219 TTJ 288 / 218 DTR 242 / (2023) 146 taxmann.com 136 (Delhi)(Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Guarantee arrangements, arm’s length guarantee commission charge should be restricted at 0.5 per cent of guaranteed amount-Adjustment of purchases-Eligible and non-eligible units-Downward adjustment was held to be not valid [S. 80IA(10), 92CA]
Greenply Industries Lid v. ACIT (2022) 220 DTR 18 / 219 TTJ 0257 / 143 taxmann.com 364 (Gau)(Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Corporate guarantee-ALP adjustment on account of corporate guarantee restricted to 0.35%. [
Sikka Ports & Terminals Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 219 TTJ 159 / 217 DTR 75 / 140 taxmann.com 211 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Technical assistance fee-Rule of consistency-Adjustment was deleted. [S.92A]
SS Oral Hygine Products (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 219 DTR 225 / 220 TTJ 939 / 145 taxmann.com 285 (Mum)(Trib)