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. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Not discussed on merits-Order of High Court set aside-Matter remanded. [Benami Property Transaction Act, 1988, S. 49]

CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2022) 286 Taxman 569 (SC)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Pre-deposit-For entertaining an appeal it is not mandatory for pre deposit of tax in dispute. [S. 144, 144B,220(6), 246A, Art. 226]

K 553 V. Thutharipalayam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 677 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Court in writ jurisdiction cannot scrutinize or reappreciate facts, evidence or findings of Settlement Commission in reaching to its conclusion for allowing claim in settlement application. [S. 245D(1), Art, 226]

PCIT v. Settlement Commission (2022) 286 Taxman 129 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Limitation-Order is barred by limitation-limitation of two years as prescribed in section 201(3), as it existed prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 1-10-2014, would apply. [S. 200, 201(3), 201(IA)]

ACIT v. ACER India (P) Ltd. ( 2022) 448 ITR 417/ 286 Taxman 570/ 215 DTR 35 / 327 CTR 613 ( (Karn.)(HC)

S. 197 : Deduction at source-Certificate for lower rate-Dividend-Rate of tax-Dividend received by a Switzerland based company from Indian company-Lower withholding tax rate of 5 per cent instead of 10 per cent in view of MFN clause-DTAA-India-Switzerland. [S. 9(1)(iv), Art. 10, Art. 226]

Cotecna Inspection SA v. ITO (2022) 286 Taxman 342 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Foreign companies-Equalization levy-Direction to deduct tax at source 10 percent-When the assessee is subjected itself to Equalization Levy of 2 per cent on payments under consideration, as an interim measure, assessee would be entitled to receive its payment from GCI subject to a deduction of 8 per cent-DTAA. [S. 115JA, 166, 195(2), 197, Art. 226]

Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 592 / 211 DTR 175 / 325 CTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Foreign companies-Equalization levy-Direction to deduct tax at source 10 percent-When the assessee is subjected itself to Equalization Levy of 2 per cent on payments under consideration, as an interim measure, assessee would be entitled to receive its payment from GCI subject to a deduction of 8 per cent-DTAA. [S. 115JA, 166, 195(2), Art, 226]

Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 592 / 211 DTR 175 / 325 CTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Foreign companies-Equalization levy-Direction to deduct tax at source 10 percent-When the assessee is subjected itself to Equalization Levy of 2 per cent on payments under consideration, as an interim measure, assessee would be entitled to receive its payment from GCI subject to a deduction of 8 per cent-DTAA. [S. 115JA, 166, 195(2), Art. 226]

Google Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 592 / 211 DTR 175 / 325 CTR 249 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 194IC : Deduction at source-Payment under specified agreement Compensation received on Acquisition of Land for Public Project under an agreement-Award-Assessee not specific person under Section 46-Compensation received not liable to Deduction of tax at source-Deductor to file correction statement of Tax Deducted-Department to process statement-Tax Deducted at source to be refunded [S. 139, 194LA, 199, 200(3), 200A(d), 237, Rule 37BA(3)(i), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 S. 46, 96, Art. 226]

Seema Jagdish Patil v. National Hi-Speed Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 445 ITR 382 / 288 Taxman 26 / 215 DTR 153 /327 CTR 281 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT)-Compensation exceeded Rs.50 thousand-Tax deducted and deposited-MACT could not have directed Insurance Company to pay said amount yet again for its payment to claimants. [S. 194A(ix), Art. 226]

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.A.C.T. Kathua (2022) 286 Taxman 98 (J & K and Ladakh)(HC)