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- Delay of 420 days in filing appeal due to subsequent decision of the Supreme Court is a valid ground for condonation of delay -An order can be said to suffer from a “mistake apparent from the record” if it contrary to a subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court. Courts do not make any new law; they only clarify the legal position which was earlier not correctly understood. Such legal position clarified by Courts has retrospective effect as the law was always the same. [S. 80HHC, 154]

Anandkumar Jain v. ITO (Mum.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal– Suggested to constitute a tax advisory cell-Suggestions on how to remove hindrances to India’s goal to become a $5 Trillion economy. Cash credits–Cash sales–Vouchers of day to day was not examined– Matter remanded for verification. [S. 68, 115BBE]

Asha Gandhi (Smt) v. ITO (SMC) ( 2019) 182 DTR 173 75 ITR 36/ 201 TTJ 900 (Chd)(Trib), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–Cross objection- Limitation -Delay of 1965 days condoned Order passed without following the mandate laid down u/s. 144C of the Act is quashed–Penalty levied was also quashed. [S. 92CA, 144C,, 201(1) 201(IA), 253(1), 254 (1) ITAT ,R. 11]

Atlas Copco (India) Limited v. DCIT (2019) 202 TTJ 395 / 184 DTR 73(Pune)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties–When any concession is made by the Authorised representatives on behalf of the assessee the Tribunal should take an affidavit from asssessee and on counsel on behalf of assessee or atleast a written endorsement made on record of case duly signed by them – Court also stated that the order to be circulated to all the members of the ITAT and also new members to be appointed-Addition confirmed by the Tribunal u/s 2 (22)(e ) of the Act is remanded to the Assessing Officer . [ S.2(22)(e) ]

Ramesh, V. v. ACIT (2019) 177 DTR 105 / 104 taxmann.com 292 / 309 CTR 87/ ( 2020) 420 ITR 10 (Mad.)(HC) Ramu, S. v. ACIT (2019) 177 DTR 105 / 309 CTR 87/ ( 2020) 420 ITR 10 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-The Tribunal should not make general observations that there are “contrary decisions”- Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation in the order and not make general observations.

PCIT v. M. J. Export Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Validity of the order could not be challenged on the ground that assessee’s paper book was not filed in advance as the Commission had not passed its order on the basis of such paper book- Petition of revenue is dismissed. [S. 245D(4)]

PCIT v. UOI (2019) 178 DTR 197/ 310 CTR 29 (Pat.)(HC)

S. 244A : Refund–Interest on refunds–Filing of Form 29B not essential for processing of return and granting of refund.- Interet is payable from date of filing of revised return [S. 154, Form 29B ]

HHA Tank Terminal (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 177 DTR 300/ 319 CTR 384/( 2020) 420 ITR 395/ 268 Taxman 181 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery–Modes of recovery–Recovery proceedings set aside as there was no valid service of assessment notice–Writ petition could not be entertained as alternate remedy was available [S. 156, Art. 226]

Camelot Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 178 DTR 185 / 105 taxmann.com 155/ 310 CTR 444 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted–property sold –rent passed on the respective owner–on such passing TDS also deducted by assessee–Held, credit of TDS deducted by original tenant can be claimed by the assessee.

CIT v. Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P) Ltd. (2019) 308 CTR 201 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 158BD : Block assessment-Undisclosed income of any other person – Separate satisfaction of the AO not necessary when Tribunal had recorded such satisfaction in the case of the searched person.[S. 158BC]

Vijayalakshmi, V. (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2019) 178 DTR 289/ 107 taxmann.com 450/265 Taxman 71 (Mag.)/( 2020)421 ITR 562/ 314 CTR 705 (Mad.)(HC)