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. 275 : Penalty-Bar of limitation-Concealment of income-Disallowance of claim-Depreciation-[S. 22, 24,32, 271(1)(c)]

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital. v. DCIT (2024) 206 ITD 90 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Failure to keep maintain-Retain books of accounts-Documents-Not maintained books of account-Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 44AA, 271A]

Balasingam Somasundaram v. ACIT (2024) 206 ITD 643/231 TTJ 350 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Share broker-Tax audit-Penalty-Commission income constitute turnover and not sale price of commodities-Penalty is deleted. [S.44B]

Parag Hashmukhbhai Davda v. ITO (2024) 206 ITD 456 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 271A : Penalty-Failure to keep maintain-Retain books of accounts-Documents-Audit of accounts-Once penalty is levied for non-maintenance of books of account, no penalty under section 271B can be levied. [S.44AB, 271B]

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija v. ITO (2024) 206 ITD 149 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Returned income and assessed income are same-Penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied.[S. 139]

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija. v. ITO (2024) 206 ITD 149 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-Depreciation-Mere disallowance of claim penalty cannot be levied.-Penalty also quashed on the ground of limitation. [S. 22, 24, 32, 275]

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital. v. DCIT (2024) 206 ITD 90 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Failure to deduct tax at source-Revision order is affirmed.[S. 10(38, 14A, 40(a)(i), R.8D]

Simens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 810 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Property held for charitable purposes-Application of accumulated income-AO failed to examine said issue during assessment proceedings, CIT(E) rightly set aside matter to file of AO for making a de novo assessment.[S.11(2), 11(3), 11(3)(d), 143(3)]

Sanganeria Foundations For Health & Education v. CIT (2024) 206 ITD 536 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Rental income from a property-Investment-Income from house property-Assessable as income from house property and not as business income-Revision order is set aside. [S. 23, 28(i), 23, 143(3)]

Effective Teleservices (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 443 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Interest-Enhanced compensation on compulsory acquisition Act 1894-Debatable-Revision is not valid. [S. 10(37), 143(3), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 28]

Pawan Kumar. v PCIT (2024) 206 ITD 53 (Delhi) (Trib.)