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. 4 : Charge of income-tax–Subsidy from State Government– Capital receipt. [S. 2(24)]

CIT v. Keventer Agro Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 482 (Cal.) (HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax–Subsidies–Receipts of interest and power subsidiaries-Capital receipts-Amendment is prospective- Receipts not being nature of income cannot be included for purpose of computing book profit. [S. 2(24), 115JB]

PCIT v. Ankit Metal and Power Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 591 / 182 DTR 333/ 266 Taxman 237/ 311 CTR 369(Cal.)(HC)

S. 2(31)(v) : Person-Association of persons-No partnership deed -No unity of control-Assessment as Association of persons is justified. [S. 132]

CIT v. Malayil Bankers. (2019) 416 ITR 322/( 2020) 185 DTR 347 / 314 CTR 568(Ker.)(HC)

S. 2(28A) : Interest-Accrual basis-Interest on compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is taxable on year wise accrual basis. [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal]

Sharda Pareek (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 416 ITR 441 /104 taxmmann.com 76/262 Taxman 253(Raj) (HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the assessee Sharda Pareek (Smt.) v. ACIT (2019) 412 ITR 31 (St)// 262 Taxman 252 (SC)

S. 2(14)(iii) : Capital asset-Agricultural land-Burden is on assessee to prove that the land was agricultural-Mere certificate by village Officer after sale of land is not sufficient–Gains assessable as capital gains. [S. 45]

CIT v. Kalathingal Faizal Rahman. (2019) 416 ITR 311 (Ker.) (HC)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007– Retraction of statement–Filing the return admitting the additional income after retraction the assessee is not entitle to exemption-No requirement of recording satisfaction before imposing penalty-Immunity from penalty–Conditions to be satisfied cumulatively i.e. surrender undisclosed income and to specify manner in which such income derived ,and pay taxes with interest in respect of undisclosed income along with return. CIT(A) has the power to enhance the penalty.[S. 132(4), 251, 271AAA(2)]

Sanjay Dattatray Kakade v. A CIT (2019) 70 ITR 519 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Long term capital gains-Surrender and disclosure u/s. 132(4)-In absence of any incriminating material found during search and seizure action would not lead to conclusion that assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [S. 10(38), 45, 132(4), 153A]

DCIT v. Rajendra Agarwal (2019) 71 ITR 518 (Jaipur)(Tirb.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–CIT(A) confirmed the penalty only in respect of 1/3rd addition-Matter remanded to CIT(A). [S. 153A]

ACIT v. St. Antony Timber Depot and vice versa (2019) 71 ITR 1 (Cochin)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Additional ground-Failure by Assessing officer to delete inappropriate words and parts in relevant paragraph of notice-Notice not specifying issued for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]

Simran K. Sayyed (Ms.) v. ITO(2019) 70 ITR 472 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Concealment-Assessing officer not referring to seized material—Concealed income should be represented by some incriminating material during course of search—Difference in computation of cost of acquisition not concealment of income. [S. 153A]

Nitinbhai Tulsidas Chottani v. Dy. CIT (2019) 70 ITR 496 (Ahd.) (Trib.)