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. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Capital gains-Temporary structure-Putting together a structure of plywood sheets cannot be construed as constructing a residential house-Inspector had also reported that there was no electricity or water connection on the land and electricity was used by genset-Order of Tribunal rejecting the exemption is affirmed. [S. 45, 260A]

Sandeep Hooda v. PCIT (2024) 169 taxmann.com 20 / 341 CTR 933 / 244 DTR 273 / 8 NYPCTR 1533 (2005)302 Taxman 208 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 49 : Capital gains-Previous owner-Cost of acquisition-Family settlement-Father acquired a property prior to 1-4-1981 and after his death said property was given to assessee by way of family settlement in 2003-Sale of property in 2007-Computing capital gain, indexed cost of acquisition was to be worked out with reference to 1-4-1981 and not with reference to date on which assessee acquired property by family arrangement, i.e., in 2003.[S. 45, 48]

Rajiv Mehra v. CIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 273 /341 CTR 329 / 243 DTR 161 / 8 NYPCTR 1424 (P&H) (HC)

S. 41(1) : Profits chargeable to tax-Remission or cessation of trading liability-Advance from a party against project to be carried out Project could not be implemented and amount is not returned due to financial constraints-Never received any benefit or enjoyed money that it had received as an advance, provisions of section 41(1) would not be applicable.[S.28(iv)]

PCIT v. Ideal Data Electronic Application Ltd.(2024) 341 CTR 1048 / 168 taxmann.com 189 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 17(2) : Salary-Perquisite-Employees stock purchase scheme-Lock in period-Shares which are subject to a lock-in stipulation and could not be sold in the open market owing to a complete embargo on the sale of those shares-The FMV could not have been recognized to exceed the face value of the shares. [S. 2(22B), 15, 17(2)(iiia), 260A]

CIT v. Ravi Kumar Sinha (2024)165 Taxmann.com 472 / 341 CTR 185 / 243 DTR 145 / 8 NYPCTR 1004 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Binding precedent-Tribunal is not justified in holding that the judgment of Delhi High Court is not binding upon it-Said conduct of the members of the Tribunal is liable to be condemned-Explanation inserted to section 14A vide Finance Act, 2022 is prospective in nature. [S. 254(1), R.8D]

Williamson Financial Services Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 341 CTR 359 / 242 DTR 537 / 301 Taxman 102/ 8 NYPCTR 1253 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Interest-No exempt income-Income of an assessee has both taxable and non-taxable elements, it would be principle of apportionment of expenditure relating to non-taxable income which would have to be identified for purpose of making disallowance under section 14A-No disallowance can me made-Explanation in S. 14A came to be inserted by virtue of the 2022 Act, w.e.f. 1st April, 2022 will apply in relation to the asst. years. 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years. [S. 260A, R.8D]

PCIT v. Alchemist Ltd. (2024) 167 taxmann.com 284 /341 CTR 668 / 242 DTR 489 / 8 NYPCTR 1099 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Uno Minda Ltd (2024) 167 taxmann.com 284 / 341 CTR 668 / 242 DTR 489 / 8 NYPCTR 1099 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection-No conflict between provision of DTAA between India and Netherlands-Non-discrimination and there was no ambiguity in classification and rates of tax, assessee, which is not a ‘domestic company’, is liable to tax at rates prescribed for a company ‘other than a domestic company’-DTAA-India-Netherlands. [S. 2(17), 2(23A), 90, Art. 24(2)]

Royal Bank of Scotland N. V. v. CIT (2024) 341 CTR 981 / 162 taxmann.com 780 (Cal.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S.4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Amount payable by declarant – Eligible assessee- Pendency of appeal – Rejection of declaration- Appeal filed by the assessee in the year 2015 was not pending as on 31st Jan., 2020—Order passed by the Tribunal recalling the order – Appeal of the assessee has to be considered as pending as on 31st Jan., 2020 which is the specified date as per the VSV Act— Order of rejection is quashed . [S. 3 , 5(2), ITAct , S. 254(1), Art. 226 ]

Atul Roshanlal Gupta v .PCIT (2024) 167 Taxmann.com 634 / 341 CTR 569 / 242 DTR 433 / 8 NYPCTR 1170 (Guj)(HC)

S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Running a milk booth for distribution of products of Mother Dairy and Vegetables Pvt Ltd-Commission income-Bona fide belief-Penalty is not leviable. [S.44AB, 273B]

Tasavver Husain v. ITO (2024)113 ITR 236 (Agra)(Trib)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Undisclosed Income-Surrender of income-Specific charge-Burden of proof to establish there was undisclosed income is on Assessing Officer-Penalty is deleted.[S. 132, 132(4)]

Ajay Kumar Sood Engineers and Contractors v.Dy. CIT (2024)113 ITR 34 (SN)(Chd)(Trib)