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. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st day of July 2012-undisclosed income-Filed income tax return as per specified date-Penalty leviable only 10 %-Anonymous donations-derived income-purpose for which it is utilized-No need to mention address of donors. [S. 115BBC]

ACIT v. G.S.L. Education Society (2020) 204 TTJ 17 (UO) (Vishakha)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice-Not specifying the charge-Quantum appeal admitted before High Court-Penalty was deleted. [S. 274]

Jamsetji Tata Trust v. ACIT (2020) 208 TTJ 303 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Failure to strike off the irrelevant default in show cause notice-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274(1)]

Pardeep Kumar Sareen v. ITO (2020) 206 TTJ 12 (UO) (Amritsar) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice-Irrelevant words were not strike down by AO-Non application of mind by AO-Notice was bad in law-Levy of penalty is held to be bad in law. [S. 274]

Darshan Pal Singh Garewal v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar)(Trib.) Malti Gupta v. Dy. CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar) (Trib.) Tejender Singh Sahai v. Dy.CIT (2020) 196 DTR 1 / 208 TTJ 259 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-disallowance u/s.10A-only on presumption basis-Not due to inaccurate information-Penalty was deleted. [S.10A]

Auro Gold Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 192 DTR 89 / 204 TTJ 1005 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Assessee’s good faith cannot be disproved-Transaction is held to be at ALP-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 92CA(3)]

ITO v. Tianjin Tianshi India P. Ltd. (2020) 189 DTR 26 / 205 TTJ 107 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Just because Commissioner was not satisfied with manner of verification and investigation-Assessment order held not to be erroneous-Revision order was quashed. [S. 143(3)]

Mandeep Singh Dhillon v. PCIT (2020) 207 TTJ 9 (UO) (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-View of the Assessing Officer is in conformity with the view of judgement of High Court-Revision is held to be not valid.[S.144C]

Shell India Markets Private Limited v. CIT (2020) 206 TTJ 405 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Assessing Officer has not examined the issue in proper perspective-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 14A, 115JB]

Tanglin Developments Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 194 DTR 65 / 207 TTJ 752 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited liability scrutiny-Assessing Officer examined documents in the original assessment proceedings-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 143(3)]

Magic London LLP v. PCIT (2020) 188 DTR 238 / 204 TTJ 765 (Delhi)(Trib.) Graffiti Technologies LLP v. PCIT (2020) 188 DTR 238 / 204 TTJ 785 (Delhi)(Trib.)