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. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Loss on account of sale of shares – Mere non-mentioning of reasons for allowing said claim of assessee by Assessing Officer would not make assessment order erroneous so as to invoke revision jurisdiction- Unabsorbed depreciation – Sale of land -Difference between stamp value and actual consideration received – Addition is justified – loss on sale of vehicle – Remanded to Assessing Officer . [ S.28 (i),50, 50C , 72, 143 (3) ,170 ]

Yerram Venkata Subba Reddy.v. ACIT ( 2020) 196 DTR 41 / 208 TTJ 885/ (2021) 187 ITD 22 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident –Advertisement expenses – Expenditure not claimed as deduction – No disallowance can be made- Matter remanded . [ S .30 to 38, 195 ]

Interactive Avenues (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT ( 2020) 196 DTR 249// 208 TTJ 945 (2021) 187 ITD 463 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution- Charitable objects- Registration cannot be denied on ground that no activities had been carried out by Trust [ S. 2(15), 11, 12A ]

South India Club. v .CIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 320 / 207 TTJ 844/ (2021) 187 ITD 492 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Sale consideration more than District level committee rate – Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ] S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Sale consideration more than District level committee rate – Addition is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ]

Om Prakash Agarwal. v. DCIT ( 2020) 194 DTR 199/ 207 TTJ 121 / (2021) 187 ITD 499 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 28 (i) : Business loss- Commencement of business — Purchase and sale – A single transaction may constitute business – Business expenditure are allowable and loss is entitle to carry forward . [ S. 2 (13) 37 (1) , 79 ]

IFFCO E-Bazar Ltd v. ACIT [2021] 85 ITR 38 (SN) (Delhi ) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,- Order is bad in law – Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. [ S.274 ]

Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 1/ 200 DTR 65/ 320 CTR 26/ 280 Taxman 334 /125 taxmann.com 253 ( FB ) (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Assessee is engaged in educational activities to spread education in matters relating to tax laws, other laws and accountancy-Entitle to exemption – Order of CIT (A) denying the exemption was reversed . [ S. 2 (15), 12A, 80G ]

All India Federation of Tax Practitioners v. ITO ( 2021 ) 190 ITD 172 (SMC ) (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 143 : Assessment – Reassessment – Notice- Reassessment order was passed against an amalgamated company (Non -existing ) company – not procedural defect – Mere participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings is of no effect as there is no estoppel against law- Such a defect cannot be cured by invoking section 292B – A Writ Petition can be filed in the Bombay High Court against an order passed in Delhi if the assessee is based in Mumbai. The litigant has the right to go to ‘a Court’ where part of cause of action arises. [ S. 147 ,148 , 292B , Art , 226 ]

Teleperformance Global Service Pvt Ltd v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 435 ITR 725/ 201 DTR 161/ 281 Taxman 331(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 245 : Refund- Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable –
The Dept has not complied with the requirements of s. 245 of the Act- It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Dept that the order passed by the high court would not cover/operate over the matters and orders passed by the ITAT, Union of India being not a party to the matter- Such a justification from and the approach of, the authorities is difficult to be approved of which is not in fitness of stature, especially of the state department, which is supposed to act like a model litigant- Directed to refund the amount with interest with in four weeks . [ S. 220 (6), Art ,226 ]

Tata Communication Ltd. v. UOI (2021)435 ITR 632/ 320 CTR 686/ 281 Taxman 162 / 201 DTR 188 (Bom) (HC),www.itatonline.org

S.254 (1): Appellate Tribunal – Additional ground – Appeal -High Court – Matter remanded to Tribunal by High Court Additional ground was raised when the matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal – Additional ground can be raised – Tribunal is justified in admitting the additional grounds- No question of law – Amalgamation –Merger – Non exiting Company – Issue of notice and Assessment – When a company is merged with another company after the filing of return but before original assessment order is passed and the original order and subsequent order in pursuance of remand from high court, in passed in the old name, is it a curable defect u/s 292B of the Income-tax Act,1961. Matter referred to larger Bench of Delhi high court on a difference of opinion. [ S. 143 (2),143 (3), 144C, 254 (1), 260A, 292B , ITAT R, 11)

PCIT v. Sonny Mobile Communications India Pvt Ltd ( Delhi) ( HC) .www.itatonline.org