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

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S.3: Charge of tax – It is not correct to say that while exercising powers under Sections 85 and 86 of the Black Money Act, the Central Government has made the said Act retrospectively applicable from 01.07.2015. The penal provisions u/s 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of S. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon [ S.2(9) ( d) , 50, 51 , 59 , 72, 85 ,86 ]

UOI v. Gautam Khaitan ( 2019) 311 CTR 249/ 183 CTR 1/( 2020) 420 ITR 140 (SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial: Decision of Delhi High Court is reversed , Gautam Khaitan v .UOI ( 2019) 308 CTR 676/ 178 DTR 100 / 415 ITR 99( Delhi) (HC)

S. 264 :Commissioner – Revision of other orders -Non grant of refund – Not an appellable order – Subject to revision- Alternative remedy is available- Writ is not maintainable [ S. 197 ,246A, Art .226 ]

Aditya Marine Ltd v. DCIT ( 2019) 183 DTR 89/ 311 CTR 695 (Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Recovery of tax – Substantial payment of tax in dispute was paid – Stay was granted. [ S.220(6) , 245 ]

Voivo Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bang)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- In cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority after arranging the cases on the basis of their seniority as well as the quantum involved in the stay. [ S.254(1)

PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd.( 2019) 184 DTR 385/( 2020) 312 CTR 373 (Delhi)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 245C : Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases – Conditions – Pendency of the assessment – An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee-Rejection of petition is held to be not valid . [ S. 245A (b) , 245(C) (1) , 245D(1) ]

M3M India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ITSC ( 2019) 419 ITR 1/311 CTR 941 / 184 DTR 93/ (2020) 269 Taxman 425 (P &H) (HC), www.itatonline.org.Editorial: SLP dismissed on ground of delay of 137 days was not explained in preferring petition, PCIT (Cent.) v. M3M India Holdings (P) Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 90/ 114 CCH 37 (SC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Reassessment – After conclusion of reassessment proceedings addition cannot be made by taking aid of explanation 3 to S. 147 . [ S.147 , 148 ]

JDC Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2019) 184 DTR 377 (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 143(3): Assessment – Method of accounting -Undisclosed income – Admission by a letter without-prejudice offer cannot be treated as admission of non-disclosure or as an unconditional offer to pay tax. Also, the disclosure is by the USA Co and not by the assessee- It is not the case of the Dept that the amount has been received in the accounts of the assessee or spent for and on behalf of the assessee so as to be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. [ S.69, 145 ]

Goodyear India Ltd. v. CIT ( 2019) 311 CTR 260/ 183 DTR 57 / ( 2020) 269 Taxman 6 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: From the judgement in CIT v . Goodyear India Ltd ( 2008 ) 9 DTR 107/ 173 Taxman 377 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 143(2):Assessment – Notice – Mere mentioning of new address in the return of income is not enough-.If change of address is not specifically intimated to the AO, he is justified in sending the notice at the address mentioned in PAN database- If the notice is sent within the period prescribed in s. 143(2), actual service of the notice upon the assessee is immaterial- CIT (A) is directed to decide the appeal on merits . [ S.250, 282 , 292BB ]

PCIT v. Iven Interactive Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 662 / 311 CTR 165/ 182 DTR 473 / 267 Taxman 471 (SC), www.itatonline.org Editorial : Order in PCIT v. Iven Interactive Ltd (Bom) (HC) , (ITA No. 94 of 2016 dt 27 -06 -2018) ( 2019) 418 ITR 665 (Bom) (HC) is set aside .

S. 69 :Unexplained investments – Review -Tax effect less than Rs .1 crore-Bogus purchases- Assessemnt – Addition cannot be made without providing a copy of the statements and opportunity of cross examination- Initial burden is discharged by the assessee by producing various documentation including purchase bills, transportation bills, confirmed copy of accounts and the fact of payment through cheques, & VAT Registration of the sellers & their income -tax return. [ S.68, 143(3), 161, 268A ]

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt.Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 315/ 311 CTR 258/ 183 DTR 25/ 266 Taxman 463.(SC),www.itatonline.org

S. 68: Cash credits -Bogus share capital- Authorities have not done even the bare minimum for verifying the genuineness of the transaction- Casual approach cannot be subscribed on our part- Matter is set aside for indepth verification . [ S.133(6)]

ITO v. Citymaker Builder Pvt. Ltd. (Mum)(Trib), www.itatonline.org