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

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Dismissal of SLP in limine- Dismissal of SLP at threshold without indicating any reasons , does not constitute any declaration of law or binding precedent under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India [ Art. 141]

State of Orissa v Dhirendra Sundar Das (2019) 6 SCC 270/( 2019) AIR SC 2331

Interpretation – Allied law

No estoppel against law- Concession in law which is contrary to the statutory rules is not binding on the litigant.

Directorate of Elementary Education v. Pramod Kumar Sahoo. (SC), www.itatonline.org

S. 143(3): Assessment- If the case is selected for limited scrutiny of a specific issue, the AO has no jurisdiction to make additions or disallowances on other issues.

Vijay Kumar v. ITO (SMC) (Chd)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S.69: Income from undisclosed sources- Penny stock –Return of 491 % – Bogus long term capital gains- Stock Exchange has identified Cresssanda Solutions Ltd as penny stock being used for obtaining bogus long term capital gains- No evidence of actual sale except contract notes issued by share Broker were produced – Denial of exemption is held to be justified .[S.10(38), 45 ]

Suman Poddar v. ITO ( 2019) 112 taxmann.com 329/ (2020) 268 Taxman 321 / 423 ITR 480 / 191 DTR 116 / 315 CTR 563 (Delhi)(HC), www. Itatonline.org Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed , Suman Poddar v. ITO (SLP No. 26864/2019 dt 22-11-2019 ( 2020) 268 Taxman 320 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Legal representative-After initiation of penalty proceedings death of the assessee-Penalty proceedings cannot be continued against his legal representatives. [S. 159]

CIT v. S. Gowri (Smt.) (2019) 417 ITR 45 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed CIT v. S. Gowri (Smt.) (2019) 417 ITR 45 (SC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Land shown as agricultural- Undertaken work to develop housing plots on land–Furnishing inaccurate particulars–Levy of penalty is held to be justified.

Chemmancherry Estates Company v. CIT (2019) 417 ITR 314 /( 2020) 268 Taxman 29(Mad.)(HC)

S. 269UC : Purchase by Central Government of immoveable properties – Restrictions on transfer-Chapter XX-C of Income-Tax Act Litigation between owner and department-Writ petitions by original assessees withdrawn in 2016-Income-Tax Department had not taken any steps to take possession of land from 1994 to 2017—High Court directing Income-Tax Authorities to take conciliatory action under Section 119(2) of the Act. [S. 119(2), S. 269UD, 269UG, Art.226]

New White Rose CHS Ltd. v. Appropriate Authority (2019) 417 ITR 122 / 310 CTR 781/182 DTR 25//(2021) 124 taxmann.com 444 (Bom.)(HC)Editorial : Appropriate Authority v. New White Rose Chs Ltd (2021) 278 Taxman 279 (SC ) , SLP of revenue dismissed ,by observing that , CBDT, while taking a decision, shall not be influenced by the observations made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment of the High Court and shall decide the matter in accordance with law.

S. 226 : Collection and recovery–Stay–Single judge directed the assessee to deposit 40 percent of total enforceable demand and furnish sufficient security for 35 percent of the total enforceable demand. [S. 220, 226(3)]

Bright Packaging Private Ltd v. ACIT (2019) 417 ITR 360 (Karn.) (HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge is affirmed, Bright Packaging (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 256 Taxman 29 (2019) 417 ITR 356 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-When the payment is not taxable–Not liable to deduct tax at source.

PCIT v. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. (2019) 417 ITR 373/ 112 taxmann.com 91 /(2020) 190 DTR 307 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment–Search-Block assessment-Search warrant in the name of firm–Documents seized–Subsequent change of address of firm–Search not invalidated–Assessment is held to be valid. [S. 132]

PCIT v. Associated Mining Co. (2019) 417 ITR 420/ 194 DTR 364 /( 2020) 312 CTR 531(Karn.)(HC)