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, and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Alternative accommodation –Redevelopment agreement – Corpus monetary consideration -Rent for alternative accommodation – Hardship allowance – Capital receipt not taxable . [ S. 56 ]

Narayan Devarajn Iyengar v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure -Capitalisation fee – Admission in medical college – Scribbling made on the back side of two pages which does not reveal that assessee had made any payment – Failure to give an opportunity of cross examination of Dean – Addition was deleted . [ S. 132 ]

Krishna D. Pawar v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Non -Resident – Swiss account funds of non -resident – Credits in HSBC (Geneva) accounts originated outside Indian Territories. – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – No business connection – Limitation – Extended period of 16 years is not applicable to non -Residents- Reassessment notice and order is held to be bad in law and quashed – DTAA -India -UK -French . [ S.6(1), 6(6), 9(1)(i) , 69,139(1) , 148 , 149(1), (149(1)( c), Art, 28 ]

Amrita Jhaveri (Ms.) v . Dy CIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

.37(1): Business expenditure – Sales and business promotion expenses -Gifting freebies to dealers and stockists – Performance in meeting sales targets – Allowable as a deduction – Circular No 5 of 2012 dt. 18 -2012 prohibits the benefit of freebies directly or indirectly to medical practioners and their professional associations and not to dealers and stockists .

Dy .CIT v. Curosis Healthcare Private Limited ( Jaipur )( Trib) www.itatonline .org.

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1948, ,S. 41: Endorsement of instruments on which duty has been paid – Development agreement – Alternative accommodation – Re development – Reference to re-development and homes is to be read to include garages, galas, commercial and industrial use and every form of society re-development – No stamp duty on permanent accommodation agreement(PAAA) , if the development agreement is stamped – Findings are not limited to the facts of the present cases only . [ S. 34, 39, 40 ]

Adityaraj Builders v . State of Maharashtra ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Shell company – Natural justice – Reply was filed in response to notice under the old regime – Order passed without considering the objection was set aside – Directed to pass the order considering the objections filed by the assessee. [S.143(2), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art , 226 ]

Sahil Infra Creative Pvt Ltd v. ITO (Surat) ( Guj)( HC)

Black Money ( Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets ) and Imposition of Tax Act , 2015 )

S.43: Penalty for failure to furnish in return of income, information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset ( including financial interest in any entity ) located outside India – Foreign insurance policy was not declared in the return- Bonafide mistake – Levy of the penalty of Rs 10 lakhs was deleted. [ S.10(3), Income -tax Act , 1961 , 139 ]

Addl. CIT v. Tejal Ashis Mehta ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

Right to Information Act ,(22)of 2005 .

S. 8(1)(e): Exemption from disclosure -Legal advice given by Advocate General to State Government-Lawyer and client is fiduciary relationship – exempt from disclosure. [ Art. 165(2) ]

Secretary to Advocate General , Ernakulam v . State Information Commissioner AIR 2023 Kerala 72

Advocate Act , 1961

S. 34: Power of High Courts to make rules – Imposition of dress code for advocates – National company law Tribunal – Only High Courts can frame rules for dress code for the appearance of advocates before courts and Tribunals, subordinate to it -Tribunals have no authority to issue any instructions determining the dress code for the appearance of advocates before it .[ Bar Council of India Rules ( 1975) , Chap .4 , Companies Act ( 18 of 2013) , S. 432 , National Company Law Tribunal Rules ( 2016) R. 16 (f) , 124 ]

R.Rajesh v.UOI AIR 2023 Madras 107

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Addition was deleted-Cancellation of penalty is valid. [Art. 136]

PCIT v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2023) 452 ITR 246 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (ITA No. 155 of 2019 dt 8-11-2021 (Raj)(HC) is affirmed.