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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Where income was offered in the return and tax paid thereon, penalty could not be levied. [S. 153A, 271AAA]

Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 180 DTR 177 / 104 taxmann.com 340 / 199 TTJ 545 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal–Monetary Limits for filing an appeal–Appeal dismissed for low tax effect–Penalty–limitation-The order passed by the AO is beyond the period of six months, thus barred by limitation. [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

ITO(E) v. A. P. S. Academy (2019)75 ITR 563 (Lucknow)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of Orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural land claimed to have been purchased by the assessee which is prohibited under Land Reforms Act of State of Rajasthan, not eligible for deduction under section 54B–AO did not consider the crucial basis before allowing deduction-Revision rightly invoked by PCIT. [S. 54B]

Ram Charan Meena. v. PCIT (2019) 182 DTR 268 / 201 TTJ 1004 / 73 ITR 568 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limitation for revision should not be counted from the date of original assessment order-MAT credit of the amalgamating company can be claimed by amalgamated company-Revision is held to be valid.

Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 182 DTR 327 / 202 TTJ 1077 / 179 ITD 436 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner–Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Commissioner should make independent enquiries to reach a conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue–In absence of independent enquiry, CIT(E) order set aside. [S. 11, 12, 28(iii), 143(3)]

National Association of Software and Services Companies (‘Nasscom’) v. CIT(E) (2019) 201 TTJ 39 / 56 CCH 532 / 181 DTR 73 (Delhi.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner–Revision of orders prejudicial to the revenue–Commissioner required to decide the issue before determining the assessment order as erroneous and unsustainable in law–Order of Commissioner set aside. [S. 143(3)]

Adishwar K. Jain v. CIT (2019) 201 TTJ 77 / 52 CCH 606 / 181 DTR 29 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Amalgamation of Companies-Department Knowing About Dissolution of assessee-PCIT to take notice of amalgamation and substitute successor while passing revision Order after hearing to amalgamated company-Commissioner passing revision order against non-existent company-Order ab initio void.

Durja Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019)76 ITR 402 (Kol.)(Trib.) Gyan Mandir Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.)(Trib.) Paramtma Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.) (Trib.) Aditi Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.)(Trib.) Light House Merchants Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 402 (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Payments liable to deduction of tax at source-Assessee crediting interest to unsecured loan accounts of parties before close of year-Decision of high court that tax not required to be deducted in case where assessee paid interest during year-AO rightly not making disallowance-Order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interests of revenue-Revision order passed by Commissioner invalid. [S. 40(a)(ia)]

Ravindra Khemka v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 330 (Lucknow)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– CIT to himself conduct enquiries-AO has carried out detailed inquiry and verification of the documents and is satisfied with the net profit shown by the eligible unit as well as the nature of expenses incurred by eligible and non eligible units, then without there being found any discrepancy or defect, such assessment order cannot be set aside. [S. 80IC]

Bagrrys India Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 179 DTR 114 / 199 TTJ 512 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 244A : Refund–Interest on refunds-Amount refundable to assessee on account of interest subsidy being capital in nature-CIT(A)’s denial for grant of such interest-without giving opportunity of hearing-Matter remanded.

Vardhman Textiles Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 183 DTR 477 / 202 TTJ 750 (Chd.)(Trib.)