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(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Loans and advances-Commercial transactions-Addition cannot be made as deemed dividend.

ITO v. Yashovardhan Tyagi (2020) 184 ITD 461 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-TPO accepted benchmarking under TNMM-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S.92D]

DCIT v. Decent Dia Jewels (P.) Ltd. (2020) 183 ITD 492 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Vague notice-Failure mention specific charge-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid-Delay in filing tax audit report-Reasonable cause-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S.273B]

North Eastern Constructions v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 348 /194 DTR 257 / 206 TTJ 354 (Guwahati)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Estimate of income-Satisfaction-8% of contractual receipts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.

Anil Abhubhai Odedara v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 313 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Penalty-Appeal of revenue is dismissed [S. 271(1)(c)]

ITO v. Dushyant Manilal Pandya. (2020) 183 ITD 581 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Construction and service contracts-Percentage completion-Project completion method-Cannot be declared as invalid-Provisions of section 43CB prescribing percentage completion method for determining profits and gains of a construction company are to be applied mandatorily with effect from 01-04-2017 i.e. assessment year 2017-18 onwards-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 43CA, 145]

Hi-tech Estates & Promoters (P.) Ltd. (2020) 84 ITR 10 / 183 ITD 690/ 207 TTJ 209 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credit-Assessing the deposits as undisclosed turnover and estimating income at 4% of turnover-Only probability and likelihood to find error in assessment order is not permitted-Revision is held to be not valid-When undisclosed amount of assessee in his bank account as undisclosed business receipts/turnover provision of 115BBE would not attract. [S. 68, 115BBE]

Abdul Hamid. v. ITO (2020) 183 ITD 711/195 DTR 321/207 TTJ 1109 (Gauhati)(Trib.)/Abdul Hannan v .ITO (2020) 183 ITD 711/195 DTR 321/207 TTJ 1109 (Gauhati) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Allotment letter-Holding period-From date of allotment of flat and not date of possession of flat-Revision is held to be not valid. [S .2(29A), 45, 54]

Yogesh Mavjibhai Gala. v. PCIT (2020) 183 ITD 665/ 196 DTR 27/ 208 TTJ 872 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commission-Without show cause notice cannot presume that incentive had not been paid-Share capital-Source of introduction of capital fully explained-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 37(1), 68]

Shailesh Kumar Gandhi v. PCIT (2020) 183 ITD 567/195 DTR 259/207 TTJ 899 (Cuttack)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Branch to head office-Interest paid by Indian branch of assessee non-resident bank to its Head Office and overseas branches being a payment to self would be governed by principle of mutuality and, therefore, same could not be brought to tax as per provision of section 9(1)(v)(c)-Revision is held to be not valid-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(v)(c), Art. 11]

JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. DCIT (IT) (2020) 183 ITD 190/185 DTR 305/203 TTJ 443 (Mum.)(Trib.)