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. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Transfer pricing-Arms’ length price-Conditional stay-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 92C, 254(2A), Art. 226]

Vodafone India Services (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 497 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-High pitched assessment-Direction to pay 20 per cent of the demand-Non speaking order-Directed to pass a speaking order Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand.[S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226, 250, Art. 226]

Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 464 ITR 738/ (2023) 152 taxmann.com 339 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : Refer, Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 161 taxmmann.com 156 /464 ITR 744 (Raj)(HC), Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 92 / 464 ITR 767 (SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand.[S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226,250, Art. 226]

Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 161 taxmmann.com 156 /464 ITR 744 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : SLP is dismissed, Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 92 / 464 ITR 767 (SC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Survey-Reassessment-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-Stay was granted subject to deposit of only 10 per cent of demand-There was no procedural impropriety affecting order on stay application-SLP of the assessee is dismissed. [S.133A, 143(3), 147, 148, 156,226,250, Art. 136]

Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (Central) (2024) 299 Taxman 92 / 464 ITR 767 (SC) Editorial: Kunj Bihari Lal Agarwal v. PCIT (2024) 161 taxmmann.com 156 /464 ITR 744 (Raj)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Waiver of interest-Payment of licence fees-Capital or revenue-Judgement dated 16-10-2023-Telecom Policy commenced in the year 1999, payment of interest for period for which tax demand was now to be met in respect of those cases was to be waived. [S. 35ABB, 37(1), Art. 136]

CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 89/466 ITR 387/ 338 CTR 873 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Bharti Hexacom Ltd(2023) 155 taxmann.com 322/ 458 ITR 593 /335 CTR 1(SC)

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Salaried employee-Tax deducted at source-Tax has been deducted at source but not deposited to Government’s account by deductor, deductee-assessee shall not be called upon to pay demand to extent tax has been deducted from his income-Department should not deny benefit of tax deducted at source by employer during relevant financial years. [S. 192, 199, 234B, 234C, Form 26AS, Art. 226]

Malay Kar v. UOI (2024) 299 Taxman 555 (Orissa) (HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums-Computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for resale/use of computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements-Not royalty-Not taxable in India-OEECD Model Convention-art 12 [S. 9(1)(vi), 9(1(vii), 195(2),201(IA), 260A]

CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2024) 299 Taxman 488(Bom)(HC)

S. 153D : Assessment-Search and seizure-Approval-Approval cannot be merely a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping by authority, rather it must reflect an appropriate application of mind-Approval was granted by Addl. Commissioner for 43 cases on a single day-Order is quashed by the Tribunal-High Court affirmed the order of Tribunal. [S. 127, 132,133A, 260A]

PCIT v. Shiv Kumar Nayyar (2024) 299 Taxman 385 /467 ITR 186 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Warrant of Authorisation-Panchnama-No search against the assessee-Panchanama reflected the name of the assessee-Panchnama cannot be treated as warrant of authorisation — Assessment order is quashed as without jurisdiction-Existence of alternative remedy — Not bar to entertainment of writ petition where challenge is to jurisdiction exercised by Authority and interpretation of statutory provisions involved [S. 132,153D, Art. 226]

Misty Meadows (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2024) 299 Taxman 392 / 465 ITR 630/338 CTR 876 (P&H)(HC)

S. 153 : Assessment-Reassessment-imitation-Order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal-Expression ‘received’-Once a responsible officer of department becomes aware of order, period of limitation would commence from that point in time-Department is directed to remove demands and penalty reflected in ITBA portal and to refund amount lying with Department along with interest [S. 254(1), Art. 226]

Sunshine Capital Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 299 Taxman 192 /338 CTR 898 (Delhi)(HC)