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

Prohibition Of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988

S. 3 : Prohibition of benami Transactions — Purchase of agricultural land – Act not applicable to companies — Action under Act should be taken within reasonable period – Provisional attachment order was set aside [S. 2(12), 2(24), 19(1)(b), 23, 24(4), Limitation Act , 1963, Rajasthan Land Revenue Act , 1956 , S 90B Art , 226 ]

Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. v . Initiating Officer, Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2021)439 ITR 62//( 2022) / 285 Taxman 335 (Raj)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S.2(1)(a): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Condonation of delay – Appeal Of Declarant Should Be Pending —Order condoning delay passed on 23-2-2021 — Appeal of declaration deemed to be pending on specified date 31-1-2020 — Declaration Valid – Directed the Designated Authority to accept the declaration . [ S. 2(n)- Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions)

Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel v .PCIT (2021)439 ITR 112/ (2022) 284 Taxman 694/ 210 DTR 8/ 325 CTR 75 (Guj) (HC)

Art. 141 : Precedent – Judgement of Supreme Court – Cannot be construed as statute – Decision of Court should be understood by taking into account factual context in mind .

Indian Agro Food Ltd v. State Bank of India AIR 2022 MP 1

S. 37(1): Business expenditure – Explanation 1 – Freebies given to doctors – Prohibited by law – Disallowed as expense – Interpretation -Taxing statutes to be interpreted strictly.-Strict interpretation should not result in absurdity contrary to intention of Parliament [Medical Council Act, 1956, S. 20A , Medical Council (professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, R. 6.8 , Contract Act , 1872 , S. 23 , General Clauses Act , 1897, S.2(38) , Indian Penal Code ,1860, S. 40, 43 ]

Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022)442 ITR 1 / 286 Taxman 200 / 211 DTR 73/ 325 CTR 121 (SC) .www.itatonline .org Editorial : Finance Act , 2022 amended the section 37 (1) provision with effect from 1-4 -2022 clarifying that the expression “ expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law .

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – CSR funds received – Specific projects – Not income of the trust – sustainable view taken by the Ld. AO – Order of revision set aside. [S. 2(24), 11 ]

JM Financial Foundation v. CIT (Mum) ( Trib ) www.itatonline .org

Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

S. 168 : Compensation – Concession by Counsel is not binding upon court – Waiver of rights of clients – Estoppel , Acquiescence and waiver .

Kirti v. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ( 2021 ) 2 SCC 166

The Advocates Act , 1961
S. 35: Punishment for Advocates for misconduct – Advocate advising his client that appeal pending before Supreme Court will not succeed at all – Held is a professional Misconduct – Needs to be proceeded with .

Madhvendra L. Bhatnagar v. Bhavna Lall ( 2021 ) 2 SCC 775

S. 98 : Securities Transaction tax-Short collection of tax-Interest and penalty-Purchase or sold through a broker registered with the stock exchange-Stock exchange was not liable to any interest and penalty. [S. 15, 99, 104, Securities Transaction Tax Rules, 2004, R. 3]

PCIT v. National Stock Exchange (2021) 323 CTR 1025 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 2(1)(a)(i) : Appellant-Pending appeal-Appeal was filed on 29 th March 2013 and numbered-High court condoned the delay-The Rejection of application was quashed-Entitle to file Form No-4 in response to Form No. 3. [S. 260A, Art. 226]

Precot Meridian Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 272 / 207 DTR 173 (Mad.)(HC) Precot Meridian Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 279 / 207 DTR 179 / ( 2022) 285 Taxman 570 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Mere apprehension on the part of the respondents that huge tax demands are likely to be raised on completion of assessment is not sufficient-Attachment of fixed deposit was quashed. [S. 153A, Art. 226]

Indian Minerals & Granite Co. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 352 / 207 DTR 164 (Karn.)(HC)