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. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Running a printing press and publishing a news paper-Profit generated was ploughed back to charitable activities-Entitle to exemption. [S. 2(15), 10(23C)(vi), 12A, 80G]

PCIT v. Servants of People Society (2021) 208 DTR 409 (2022) 324 CTR 167 /284 Taxman 461 /133 taxmann.com 244 / 447 ITR 99 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Improve public transport system in the country and the road safety standards-Revenue from laboratory testing and consultancy-Not to earn profit for share holders-Entitle to exemption-Proviso to section 2(15) is not applicable-No substantial question of law. [S. 2(15)]

CIT(E) v. Association of State Road Transport Undertakings (2021) 208 DTR 313/(2022)324 DTR 165 / 283 Taxman 55(Delhi)(HC)

S. 10(26B) : Income of Body Corporation established or wholly financed by Central or State Government for promoting interests of Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes-Engaged in work of development of National Safai Karamcharis who were involved in upliftment of Safai Karamcharis and Manual Scavengers who belong to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes and also in inhumane practice of scavenging and other sanitation activities-Entitle to exemption.

CIT(E) v. National Safai Karamcharis Finance and Development Corporation (2021) 283 Taxman 576 / 323 CTR 816 / 208 DTR 57 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 10(23C) : Educational institution-Computation of income-Receipt from education institution was less than 1 Crore-Entitle to exemption-Receipts of educational institution cannot be clubbed with other income of the society for the purpose of computing exemption u/s. 10(23C)(iiiad) of the Act. [S. 10(23C)(iiiad), 12AA, IT Rules, 1962, 2BC]

Manas Sewa Samiti v. Add. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 79/ 323 CTR 737 / 208 DTR 41 (2022) 284 taxman 418 (All.)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credit-Not assessable as business income. [S. 28(i)]

CIT v. Prabhu Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 89 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 2(22)(e): Deemed dividend-Advance against sale of commercial space-Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.

PCIT v. Anumod Sharma (2021) 283 Taxman 564 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Land continued to be agricultural land in the revenue records-located 20 kms. away from municipal corporation limits-Cutting and carrying away of rubber trees did not change classification of land from agricultural to non-agricultural land-User by buyer is not relevant for assessing the gain in the hands of the assessee-Not liable to be assessed as capital gains [S. 45]

CIT v. Cochin Malabar Estates & Industries Ltd (2021) 208 DTR 119 / (2022) 440 ITR 121/324 CTR 246/134 taxmann.com 162/ 285 Taxman 69 (Ker.) (HC)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .
S. 13: Contempts not punishable in certain cases – Advocates – Professional standards , ethics, and duties – Duty to avoid publicity – Judicial independence and courage – Media Trial – Trail by media – Judicial decisions cannot be influenced by opinions expressed in media . [Advocates Act ,1961 , S. 35, General Clauses Act , 1897, S. 3(22), Art, 19(1)(a) ,19(2) , 32 , 226 ]

Prashant Bhushan and another . In re ( 2021 ) 3 SCC 160

S. 194H : Deduction at source – Commission or brokerage – Sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors – Discounts given by assessee-telecommunication company on sale of prepaid SIM cards to distributors- Not liable to deduct tax at source

CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021)131 taxmann.com 191 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed by the revenue , CIT(TDS) v. Vodafone Cellular Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 292 (SC)

S. 195: Deduction at source – Non-resident – Lower deduction of tax – Indexation – Binding precedent – Order of Tribunal is binding on lower Authorities – Capital gains – Cost of acquisition of the property in the hands of seller is deemed to be the cost for which the said property was acquired by previous owner – Excess tax paid by the petitioner was directed to be refunded with interest [ S. 2(29A) 2(42A) 45, 48, 49(1)(ii), 55(2)(b)(ii), 195 (2), 244A(1)(b), Art 226]

Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (IT) / ( 2022) 211 DTR 184 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org