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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Pronouncement of orders-Repeated adjournments for orders or for pronouncement of judgment where arguments have been heard and orders have been reserved would not be permissible even during lockdown. [S. 260A, Order XII, Rule 6 of CPC]

Dalbir Singh v. Satish Chand (2020) 273 Taxman 317 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Inadvertently omitted to make claim for deduction under section 10B-All necessary facts were already on record-CIT (A or Appellate Tribunal ought to have entertained claim-Unlike an ordinary appeal, basic purpose of a tax appeal is to ascertain correct tax liability of assessee in accordance with law-Matter remanded. [S. 10B, 250, 254(1)]

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 430 ITR 114 / 272 Taxman 543 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Stay-Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to decide appeal and stay application without asking for deposit of 20 per cent of tax demand. [S. 226 (6), 249, Art. 226]

Aranattukara Oriental Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2020) 273 Taxman 165 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Attachment of bank account is to be limited to 20 percent of demand. [S. 220 (6), Art. 226]

Monarch v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 63 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay of demand-Loan-Stay was granted subject to 20 percent payment of tax in dispute. [S. 68, 220(6), Art. 226]

Jindal ITF Ltd. v. UOI (2020) 273 Taxman 39 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted-Issue of manual 26A-Assessee was directed to approach department by making application enclosing Form 16A and department would consider claim of assesse. [Form 16A, 26A, Art. 226]

Subramania Siva v. ITO (2020) 272 Taxman 455 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors-Notice was silent regarding fact that tax dues could not be recovered from company and, further, there was no whisper of any steps being taken against company for recovery of outstanding amount-Notice against assessee was set aside. [Art. 226]

Ashita Nilesh Patel v. ACIT (2020) 270 Taxman 132 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Alternative remedy is not absolute bar-Dismissal of application in a mechanical manner without even affording an opportunity of hearing-not to be relegated to avail alternative remedy of filing appeal, rather, impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be remanded back to respondent for fresh disposal. [Art. 226]

Ernakulam District Posts Telecom and BSNL Employees Co-op. Society Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 273 Taxman 21 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Refund-Tax deducted at source-Credit was not given-Assessing Authority was to be directed to pass order on rectification application within 3-4 weeks time. [S. 237 Art.226]

Unitac Energy Solutions (I) (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 272 Taxman 464 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction granted by Chief Commissioner-Chief Commissioner was not specified officer under section 151(2) to grant such sanction-Notice was quashed. [S. 2(28C), 148, 151(2) Art. 226]

Miranda Tools (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 272 Taxman 154 (Bom.)(HC)