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-Imparting education-Surplus in educational activities-Alleged excess remuneration to trustee employees-Revenue has no power to interfere-Exemption cannot be denied. [S. 2(15), 12A, 13]

CIT(E) v. Krupanidhi Education Trust (2022) 441 ITR 154 (Karn.) (HC) Editorial : Order in Krupanidhi Education Trust v. DIT (2013) 21 ITR 373 (Bang)(Trib) is affirmed., CIT (E) . v. Krupanidhi Education Trust (2023)453 ITR 750/ 293 Taxman 2 (SC)

S. 9(1)(vi) : Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Royalty-Transferrer authorising transferee to use licensed software-No Transfer of Copyright-Amount received not assessable as royalty. Copyright Act, 1957, S.14(a), 14(b), 30, 52(1)(aa), Art. 226]

EY Global Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 441 ITR 54 / 324 CTR 149 / 209 DTR 1 / 285 Taxman 100 (Delhi)(HC) EYGBS (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT (2022) 441 ITR 54/ 324 CTR 149/ 209 DTR 1 / 285 Taxman 100 / 324 CTR 149 / 209 DTR 1 / 285 Taxman 100 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Investment of funds before commencement of operation-Fixed deposits and mutual funds-Not revenue receipt. [S. 10(35), 28(i), 145]

CIT v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022) 441 ITR 113 / 285 Taxman 491 (Karn.)(HC)

Art : 141 : Limitation —Covid -19 – Extension of periods — Initial order passed by Supreme Court restored — Period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 excluded for purposes of limitation prescribed under any General or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings — Further clarification given [ Art . 142, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , S. 23(4),29A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 S. 12A, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , S. 38 , any other laws , Courts or Tribunal ]

Cognizance For Extension of Limitation, In Re (2022)441 ITR 722 (SC)

Constitution of India .

Art. 14 : Discrimination- Salary — Income-Tax department – State as an employer -Equal pay for equal work – Peons and watchmen — Difference in wages between those engaged prior to 2013 and those engaged later — Not justified. [ Art, 16, 39 ]

PCIT . v. Pankaj Singh Brijwal (2022) 441 ITR 713 (Uttarakhand) (HC) PCIT v. Narendra Singh Bisht (2022) 441 ITR 713 (Uttarakhand) (HC) PCIT v. Amar Ram (2022) 441 ITR 713 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

Wealth-Tax Act , 1957

S. 17 : Reassessment — Tangible material-Assessment cannot be reopened for redetermination of value based on subsequent sale of property — Reassessment unsustainable- Existence of alternative remedy — Not bar to writ. Art , 226 ]

ITO v. Sarojini Ramaswamy (Deceased) (2022)441 ITR 674 / 210 DTR 161/ 325 Taxman 47 (Mad) (HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 2(1)(a)(ii): Appellant – Declaration — Pending proceeding — Application for condonation of delay in filing appeal pending before Commissioner (Appeals) — Declaration to be considered by Designated Authority. [ S.246 Art , 226 ]

Ritesh Bakuleshbhai Mehta v. PCIT (2022)441 ITR 287 / 285 Taxman 442 (Guj) (HC )

S. 21 : Professional misconduct-Scheme of Merger-Report was subject to judicial proceedings before High Court-Once the scheme of merger was sanctioned there would be no reason for Disciplinary Committee of ICAI to adjudicate the correctness of the report. [S. 22, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S. 138, Criminal Procedure Code,1973, S. 482]

Wholesale Trading Services (P) Ltd. v. ICAI (2022) 285 Taxman 216 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 3(2)(a) : Prohibition of benami transactions-Son cannot claim share in property allegedly purchased by his deceased father benami in his mother’s name as section 3(2)(a) of Benami Act presumes that any property purchased in name of one’s wife is for her benefit.

Ambethraj v. Gowthaman (2022) 285 Taxman 159 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 2(a) : Benami Transaction-Property purchased in the name of wife before decree in suit-Attachment of property is held to be not valid.

Ambula Ammal v. Anbumani (2022) 285 Taxman 27 (Mad.)(HC)