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–Educational activities-Activities like holding conferences on industrial safety programmes, public talks, seminars, workshops, etc. on ongoing basis to inculcate industrial safety measures would also be bracketed in league of educational activities-Entitle to exemption. [S.2(15), 12A]

Gujarat Safety Council v. ITO (2020) 180 ITD 711 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 9(1)(i) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Business connection–Liaison office–Involved in preparatory and auxiliary activities but also involved in ascertaining customer requirements, price negotiations obtaining of purchase orders etc–Constituted PE in India and profit attribution has to be done-DTAA-India-Singapore. [S. 92, Art. 5]

Hitachi High Technologies Singapore Pte Ltd. (2019) 202 TTJ 273 / ( 2020) 180 ITD 861 / 187 DTR 223 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-In balance sheet of ‘K’ Ltd, amount in question was not shown as loan to assessee-addition is deleted.

Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394 / 180 ITD 832 / 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune)(Trib.) Kruti Lalit Kumar Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394/ 180 ITD 832/ 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune) (Trib.) Pranay Lalit Kumar Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394/ 180 ITD 832 / 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune) (Trib.)

S. 2(1A) : Agricultural income-Income from mushroom spawn grown in nursery qualifies as agricultural income-Eligible for exemption-Issue restored to file of AO to determine whether spawn was actually grown by assessee-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 10(1)]

Doon Valley Foods (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 181 ITD 18 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 271AB : Penalty–in search case-Assessee not person subjected to search-Penalty proceedings against assessee not sustainable. [S. 132(4)]

Suresh H. Kerudi v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 44 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007- AO must establish there was undisclosed income-Estimated income not undisclosed income-No specific finding in respect of any specific seized material or undisclosed income detected as a result of search-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 132]

Dy. CIT v. Himanshu Verma (2019) 76 ITR 698 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Notice–No specific charge and limb under which penalty proposed–Concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income–Notice void ab intio. [S. 274]

Rajendra Kumar and Co. v. DCIT (2019)75 ITR 73 (Lucknow) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Loss of equipment-Forfeiture of security deposit–Revenue or capital expenditure-Debatable issue-Full disclosure during the assessment proceedings–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 75 ITR 48 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Mere claim–Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Levy of penalty is not justified – Delay of 229 days condoned due to health ground. [S. 10(13A), 254(1)]

Pradipta Kumar Das v. ACIT (2019) 75 ITR 85 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–In the absence of evidence to suggest concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty cannot be levied.

Punjab Sind Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 180 DTR 203 /199 TTJ 929 (Mum.) (Trib.)