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. 2(1A) : Agricultural income-Income from mushroom spawn grown in nursery qualifies as agricultural income-Eligible for exemption-Issue restored to file of AO to determine whether spawn was actually grown by assessee-Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 10(1)]

Doon Valley Foods (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 181 ITD 18 (Chd.) (Trib.)

S. 271AB : Penalty–in search case-Assessee not person subjected to search-Penalty proceedings against assessee not sustainable. [S. 132(4)]

Suresh H. Kerudi v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 44 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007- AO must establish there was undisclosed income-Estimated income not undisclosed income-No specific finding in respect of any specific seized material or undisclosed income detected as a result of search-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 132]

Dy. CIT v. Himanshu Verma (2019) 76 ITR 698 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Notice–No specific charge and limb under which penalty proposed–Concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income–Notice void ab intio. [S. 274]

Rajendra Kumar and Co. v. DCIT (2019)75 ITR 73 (Lucknow) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Loss of equipment-Forfeiture of security deposit–Revenue or capital expenditure-Debatable issue-Full disclosure during the assessment proceedings–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 75 ITR 48 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Mere claim–Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Levy of penalty is not justified – Delay of 229 days condoned due to health ground. [S. 10(13A), 254(1)]

Pradipta Kumar Das v. ACIT (2019) 75 ITR 85 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–In the absence of evidence to suggest concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty cannot be levied.

Punjab Sind Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 180 DTR 203 /199 TTJ 929 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Where income was offered in the return and tax paid thereon, penalty could not be levied. [S. 153A, 271AAA]

Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 180 DTR 177 / 104 taxmann.com 340 / 199 TTJ 545 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal–Monetary Limits for filing an appeal–Appeal dismissed for low tax effect–Penalty–limitation-The order passed by the AO is beyond the period of six months, thus barred by limitation. [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]

ITO(E) v. A. P. S. Academy (2019)75 ITR 563 (Lucknow)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of Orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural land claimed to have been purchased by the assessee which is prohibited under Land Reforms Act of State of Rajasthan, not eligible for deduction under section 54B–AO did not consider the crucial basis before allowing deduction-Revision rightly invoked by PCIT. [S. 54B]

Ram Charan Meena. v. PCIT (2019) 182 DTR 268 / 201 TTJ 1004 / 73 ITR 568 (Jaipur)(Trib.)