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. 115-O : Domestic companies-Tax on distributed profits-Rate in force-Non-Resident share holders-Double Taxation avoidance agreement-DTAA being more beneficial to assessee would be applicable over rate specified in section 115-O-Matter remanded. [S. 2(37A), 4, 90]

DCIT v. Indian Oil Petronas (P.) Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 490/ 214 TTJ 123 / 207 DTR 131 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Business loss-Depreciation loss-Available for reduction from book profits till it was wiped off. [S. 28(i), 32, 72]

GO Airlines (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 430 / 198 DTR 113 / 209 TTJ 731 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Reimbursement of expenses-Mark up was directed to be re-examined.

Tata Coffee Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 128 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Interest free advance-LIBOR rate and not domestic lending rate-Loan to AE-International Transaction. [S. 92B]

Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 189 ITD 183 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Secondary adjustment cannot be rejected-Matter was remanded for verification of factual elements. [S. 92CE(1)]

Gemological Institute of America Inc. v. ACIT(IT) (2021) 189 ITD 254 / 88 ITR 505 / 211 TTJ 521 / 201 DTR 321 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-TPO cannot decide as to whether expenses incurred by assessee were necessary for business purpose of assessee or not. [S. 37 (1)]

DCIT v. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Import and export of diamonds-Purchase invoices, ledger account, payment details and PAN was produced-Restricting 6% of alleged bogus purchases is held to be justified-Disallowance of expenses was held to be not justified. [S. 132, 143(3)]

DCIT v. Lucent Diamond (2021) 189 ITD 581 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Demonetization-Exempt limit of income-tax-Housewife-Bank deposits were made was less than 2.50 lakhs-No addition can be made.

Uma Agrawal (Smt.) v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 659 / 212 TTJ 427/ 203 DTR 404 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-A Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC) engaged in providing loans and investment activities in India-Loan was not advanced to Foreign Company-Addition was held to be not justified.

DCIT v. Rabo India Finance Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 420 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital-Good will-Allotment of shares in lieu of goodwill-No movement of actual money either cash or through bank-Addition cannot be made as cash credits.

ITO v. Zexus Air Services (P.) Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 434 / 88 ITR 1 (Delhi)(Trib.)