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. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Powers-Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Escrow account-Consideration received less than the amount credited in the account-Only actual consideration taxable-Power of Principal Commissioner not restricted to allowing relief only up to returned income -Recomputation results in income less than returned income-Section 240 not applicable-Entitle to refund of excess tax paid. [S. 45, 48, 240, 264, Art. 226]
Dinesh Vazirani v. PCIT (2022) 445 ITR 110/ 285 Taxman 325/(2024) 337 CTR 380 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Deemed dividend-Loans and advances to shareholders-Unsecured loan from group company-Paid back with interest in same year-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 263]
PCIT v. Suprabha Industries Ltd. (2022 286 Taxman 156 / 211 DTR 157/ 325 CTR 757 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share application money-Revision order is held to be valid. [S. 68 69]
Neelkantha Commosales (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 286 Taxman 48 (Cal.)(HC)
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)