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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)-Depreciation is disallowed – Appeal not filed – Deletion of penalty is held to be valid. [S. 32]

PCIT v. Himalayan Expressway Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 364 /(2020) 423 ITR 40(P&H)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Revised return file prior to issuance of notice u/s 153C – No satisfaction was recorded-Deletion of penalty is held to be valid. [S. 153C]

PCIT v. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra (Smt.) (2019) 419 ITR 94 (MP) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Prabhjot Kaur Chhabra (Smt.) (2019) 416 ITR 78 (St)

S. 269K : Acquisition of immoveable property–Deposit– Compensation-Acquisition by and vesting of property in Income-Tax Department In 1978-Deposit of compensation in Court-Petitioners’ right to property ousted in civil suits-Additional District judge finding petitioners had no title to property and not entitled to compensation-Source of compensation payment/deposit irrelevant. Writ is held to be not maintainable–Cost of Rs.25,000 was imposed. [S. 269(F(6), 269-I, Art. 226]

Ravi Kapoor v. UOI (2019)419 ITR 84 (P&H)(HC)

S. 268A : Appeal–Monitory limit-Tax effect is less than one crore-Appeal is not maintainable. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Crisil Risk & Infrastructure Solution Ltd. (2019) 267 Taxman 215 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital or revenue–Expenditure incurred on CDs-Allowed as revenue expenditure-Plausible view–revision is held to be not valid-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 37(1)]

PCIT v. Sumatichand Tolamal Gouti (2019) 267 Taxman 495 / 111 taxmann.com 286 (Bom.)(HC) Editoral : SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Sumatichand Tolamal Gouti (2019) 267 Taxman 494 (SC)// 417 ITR 62 (St.)(SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Order passed by the AO under direction of dispute Resolution Panel can be set aside-Alternative remedy–Writ to quash the notice u/s 263 is held to be not maintainable. [S. 144C, Art.226]

Devas Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 419 ITR 391 / 311 CTR 313/ 183 DTR 33/( 2020) 268 Taxman 150 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Review–Mistake apparent from the record – Reappreciation of evidence and rehearing of case without there being any error apparent on the face of the record is not permissible. [S.22(3)(f), 220(2), 220(2A)

Mansukhlal v. PCIT (2019) 181 DTR 241 / 310 CTR 467 (MP)(HC)

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal–Stay-Order of Tribunal to pay entire outstanding demand instalments were modified as the Tribunal did not record any finding that assessee had not made out a prima facie case and hardship. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]

J. Dinakaran v. Registrar ITAT (2019) 267 Taxman 492 / 110 taxmann.com 523 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: Tribunal set aside the order of the AO and remanded to the AO, accordingly the SLP is withe J. Dinakaran v. Registrar ITAT (2019) 267 Taxman 491 (SC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Tribunal considering matter and passing order—No Obvious error–Protective assessment-Order cannot be rectified– Writ petition was allowed. [S. 158BC, Art.226]

Ambica Realties Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Registrar (2019)419 ITR 382 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties–Alternative grounds-Direction issued by ITAT could not be construed to be restrictive in nature thereby preventing AO to consider all grounds and more particularly, when ITAT had not rendered any finding on applicability of S.. 194C—Order passed by ITAT should be and shall be read as an open remand to AO to consider all issues that were pleaded by assessee before ITAT. [S. 194C]

Tata Teleservices Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 183 DTR 217 / 311 CTR 380 (Mad.)(HC)