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. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment to contarctor – Failure to furnish form No 15J – PAN no of was collected at the time of payment – No dialloawance can be made [ S. 194C (7), R, 31A ] S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Payment to contarctor – Failure to furnish form No 15J – PAN no of was collected at the time of payment – No dialloawance can be made [ S. 194C (7), R, 31A ]

CIT v. Shri Parameshwari Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (2020) 317 CTR 898 (Pat) (HC)

S .14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – In the absence of dividend income – No disallowance can be made [ R.8D ]

CIT v. Shri Parameshwari Spinning Mills P. Ltd. (2020) 317 CTR 898 (Pat) (HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution-Genuiness of Trust is established – No mandate to get registration under MP Public Trust Act , 1951 – Order of Tribunal is affirmed .[MP Public Trust Act 1951 ]

CIT v. Maharshi World Peace Trust (2020) 190 DTR 389/ 315 CTR 469 (MP) (HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Engaged in running educational institutions and providing medical relief to poor – Running community hall – Entitle to exemption [ S. 2(15), 11(4A)]

Sri Ram Samaj v. JCIT (2020) 275 Taxman 309 / 194 DTR 177 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 10A : Free trade zone – Profits of business – Total turnover – Export turnover- Claiminng deduction u/s 80HHE earlier cannot be bar to claim deduction u/s 10A of the Act [ S.80HHE ]

CIT v. Tata Consultancy Services (2020) 317 CTR 124 (Bom) (HC)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Surrendering additional income-Appeal not filed-Levy of penalty at 10% is held to be justified-Difference in valuation as per books and Department valuer-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 132, 153B(1)(b)]

Sumangal Gems v. Dy.CIT (2020) 84 ITR 40 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Undisclosed income-Cash seized-Past savings of other family members–Inherited jewellery-Advances given to for purchase of land-Deeming fiction cannot be applied-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 69, 69B, 132(4)]

Rajendra Kumar Jain v. ACIT (2020) 84 ITR 325 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007-Concealment-Additions deleted-Penalty does not survive-Notice not mentioning specific limb of explanation-Penalty not imposable. [S. 274]

ACIT v. Sanjiv Gupta (2020) 84 ITR 29 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue Infrastructure undertaking-Assessing Officer taking plausible view-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 80IA]

MBL Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 84 ITR 189 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Method of accounting-Construction company-Percentage competition method-Mandatory from assessment year 2017-18-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 43CB]

HI-Tech Estates and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 183 ITD 690/84 ITR 10/207 TTJ 209 (Cuttack)(Trib.)