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. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes-Return was not filed with in the period specified in the notice-Assessment completed denying the exemption and demand was raised-Application for condonation of delay in filing the return was pending before CBDT-Directed to decide the application for condonation of delay and the demand was stayed till the disposal of application. [S. 12AA, 119, 139, 142(1), Form No. 10B, Art. 226]

Sree Narayana Educational and Charitable Society v. CIT (2020) 274 Taxman 160 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 115O : Domestic companies – Tax on distributed profits – Buy back of shares – Approval of Scheme – Capital gains or dividend income – Direction to file an appeal before CIT (A) and also finding on merits – Decision on merit is held to be not valid – Direction to file an appeal is held to be justified. [ S. 2 (22)(d), 10 (34A), 46A, 115QA, 246A Art , 226 ]

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v .Dy.CIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 371/ 310 CTR 515/ (2020) 269 Taxman 151 (Mad ) (HC ) Editorial: Refer Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v .Dy CIT (2020) 424 ITR 302 187 DTR 369/ 313 CTR 510 / 274 Taxman 381 (SC)

S.148: Reassessment —Notice in name of dead person — Held to be not valid — Not a defect curable under S. 292B of the Act – Intimation by legal Representative that noticee was dead is not a participation in reassessment proceedings [ S.147 , 292B Art .226 ]

Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadeja. v. ITO (2020) 420 ITR 226 / 273 Taxman 481 (Guj) (HC)

Wealth tax- Act , 1957

S.7: Value of assets – Land – Valuation date – Land sold subsequently for which agreement was entered in to before valuation date – Justified in taking the value on the basis of sale value [ S. 2(q), 27A, Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act 1976 ]

Mahendra J. Vora v . Dy .CWT (2020) 187 DTR 25/ 313 CTR 355 (Bom)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed Mahendra J. Vora v. Dy.CWT ( 2022) 446 ITR 11 ( St) ( SC)

S. 133 : Power to call for information – Authorities – ITO (Intelligence ) is an authority to issue notice under section 133(6) to the assessee Co -Operative banks prior to CBDT Notification No 77 of 2014 dt 10 -12 -2014 [ S. 90, 90A, 120, 124, 133(6), 272A(2)(c)]

Enanalloor Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2020) 317 CTR 191 (Ker) (HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Belated filing of form No .26Q- Matter remanded to Assessing Officer – No substantial question of law [ S.194C(7) ]

CIT v . Sri Parameswari Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (2020) 196 DTR 206 (Mad) (HC )

S. 245R : Advance rulings – Mere issue of notice under section 143 (2) is not an bar for approaching the AAR- Writ petition of revenue is dismissed .[ S.143 (2), 245R(2) ]

CIT v. Authority for Advance Ruling (2020) 275 Taxman 391/ 194 DTR 1/ 316 CTR 673 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 158BE : Block assessment – Time limit – Panchanama – Approval was taken -Notice u/s 143 (2) was issued – Search in more than one premises – More than one Panachnama which state that search continued and prohibitory order was issued – Vacation of prohibitory order has to be considered as conclusion of search- Order is not barred by limitation . [ S. 132(3) , 143 (2) , 158BG , Art , 226 ]

Bharat Mehta (Deceased) Through LR Mehul Mehta (Dr.) v. Dy. CIT (2020) 317 CTR 759 (Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Reasons communicated -Participated in the proceedings – If relevant germane reasons exist and have been communicated to the assessee that is enough for reassessment proceedings to hold the field- Writ is not maintainable [ S.148 , Art , 226 ]

Mohan Ravi v. ITO (2020) 195 DTR 113 (Mad)(HC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Barred by limitation -Defective return – On removal of defect the return would relate back to the date of filing of the original return- Period of limitation has to be computed from the filing of original return – Order is bad in law [S.139 , Art . 226 ]

Travel Designer India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 269 Taxman 429/191 DTR 310 / 315 CTR 800 (Guj.)(HC).Editorial : Notice in SLP filed by the revenue, Notice issued in SLP filed by revenue , Dy. CIT v. Travel Designer India (P) Ltd. (2021) 283 Taxman 9 (SC)