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. 139AA: Return of income – Quoting of Aadhar number – Legislative powers – Provision is held to be valid – Proviso to s. 139AA(2) cannot be read retrospectively as it takes away vested rights. It will only have prospective effect. [Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 21]

Binoy Viswam v. UOI (Adhaar Card Linkage with Pan) (2017) 396 ITR 66/249 Taxman 290/296 CTR 17/153 DTR 209 (SC)

S. 133A: Power of survey – Statements recorded during Survey – Evidentiary value – Unexplained investments – Statement obtained under survey would not automatically bind upon the assesse and that it is not conclusive piece of evidence by itself and that section 133A does not empower any Income-tax Officer to examine any person on oath and that solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the partner of the assessee-firm income is not assessable – Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of such statement. [S. 69 ]

CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2012) 210 Taxman 248/79 DTR 184/254 CTR 228/ (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC)

S.132: Search and seizure – Constitutional validity – Evidence found in illegal search – Can be used against the person from whose custody it was seized. [S. 135, Rule 112, of the Income-tax Rules, 1962; Constitution of India 1949, Art. 14 , 19]

Poran Mal v. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505/1974 CTR 25 (SC)

S. 131 : Power regarding discovery , production of evidence ,etc- Investigation and Enquiry – Summons under Customs Act – Presence of Advocate during interrogation of Petitioner – To be within visible range but beyond hearing range – Advocate must be prepared to be present for every summons made. [Customs Act, 1962 S. 108]

Vijay Sajnani v. UOI 2017 (345) ELT 323 (SC)/MANU/SC/1312/2012

S.119: Central Board of Direct Taxes – Instructions – Circulars binding on revenue. [ Indian Income -tax Act , 1922 , S .2(6A)(e), 12(IB) ]

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K. K. Sen AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC)

S. 115J : Book profit – Net profits in profit and loss account prepared in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to Companies Act – Accounts scrutinised and certified by statutory auditors – Assessing Officer has no power to scrutinise except as provided in Explanation. [ Companies Act , 1956 , Parts II and III of Schedule VI ]

Apollo Tyres Ltd v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 273/122 Taxman 562/174 CTR 521 (SC)

S. 92C: Avoidance of tax – Transfer pricing – Arms’ length price –Transactional Net Margin Method is the appropriate method in the case of service PE as it apportions the total operating profit arising from the transaction on the basis of sales, costs, assets, etc -Attribution of profit to permanent establishment – DTAA – India-USA. [S.9(1) , 90 , 92B , Art. 7]

DIT v. Morgan Stanley & Co. (2007) 292 ITR 416/210 CTR 419/162 Taxman 165/201 Taxation 160 (SC)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief – India – Mauritius DTAA – Circular No. 789 ( 2000) 243 ITR (St) 57 , not ultra vires the provisions of the Income-tax Act [S.2(17, 5(2) , 6(3) , 119 , Art .3, 4, 13(4) ]

UOI v. Azadi Bachao Andolan (2003) 263 ITR 706/132 Taxman 373/184 CTR 450 (SC)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief – Business income arising out of rubber plantations in Malaysia cannot be taxed in India – capital gains derived from immovable property is not taxable in India as the property being situated in Malaysia – In case of conflict between Income-tax Act and the provisions of DTAA, provisions of DTAA would prevail over the provisions of Income-tax Act – DTAA India – Malaysia [S. 4, 5, 28(i), 45, Art . 4, 5, 6, 7 & 22]

CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (2004) 267 ITR 654/137 Taxman 460/189 CTR 193 (SC)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing Projects – If the project is approved by local authority as housing project with convenience shopping the assessee is entitled to deduction – Prior to
1-4-2005 – Clause (d) inserted to Section 80IB(10) with effect from 1-4-2005 is prospective and not retrospective and hence cannot be applied for the period prior to 1-4-2005.

CIT v. Veena Developers (2015) 277 CTR 297/119 DTR 237/66 taxmann.com 353 (SC)