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

Interpretation of taxing statutes – Proviso – Ratio decidendi

Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1/ 318 CTR 609 / 197 DTR 361 / 279 Taxman 75(SC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies – Section must be read liberally and reasonably and in case of ambiguity, in favour of the assessee – Once a co-operative society provides credit facilities to its members, the fact that it also provides credit facilities to non-members does not disentitle it from availing of the deduction. Section does not require that the society has to give agricultural credit only –-Proviso which excludes co-operative banks which are co-operative societies engaged in banking business and not primary agricultural credit societies- Interpretation – Proviso cannot be used to cut down language of main enactment- Precedent — Ratio decidendi alone binding and not what may seem logically to follow from it. [ S. 2(19), 80P(2)(a), 80P(4), Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969, Ss. 2(F), (Oaa), (Ob), (Oc), 3, 4, 7, 8 , Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1969, R. 15. ]

Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 1/ 318 CTR 609 / 197 DTR 361 (SC) Editorial : Decision in PCIT v. Poonjar Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd [2019] 414 ITR 67 (Ker) (HC) reversed.• SLP is granted to the assessee Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 12 (St) (SC)/ (2020) 269 Taxman 387 (SC) • SLP is granted to the assessee Mavilayi Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. CIT (2019) 418 ITR 12 (St) (SC)/ (2020) 269 Taxman 387 (SC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 4: Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Appeal with drawn as dismissed – Charitable Trust – Collection of capitalisation fee for admission of students [ S. 2 (15) 11, 12 , 13, 261 ]

Karnataka Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. CIT (2021 ) 431 ITR 50/ 319 CTR 651 /199 DTR 305 / 278 Taxman 363(SC)

S.56 : Income from other sources – Excess over Fair market Value of Shares – Deemed income – Not applicable – shares issued under a scheme of Amalgamation.[ S.56 (2)(viib) ]

DCIT v. Ozone India Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 476/ 211 TTJ 477/ 203 DTR 161/(2022) 94 ITR 609 (Ahd) (Trib)(Ahd )(Trib ) www.itatonline .org

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Claim supported by various decisions and documentary evidence-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

Kumudini v. Gavit (Smt.) v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 30 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Search cases-Income declared in return filed-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid-Not mentioning the specific offence committed-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 132(4), 153A]

Jayant B. Patel HUF v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 44 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Ex Parte-Should have called for assessment records and thereafter should have passed the order-Matter remanded for disposal afresh.

AP Garments P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 42 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Incorrect set of off Minimum alternate tax credit-Prima Facie Mistake Apparent From Record-Not A Debatable Issue-Levy of interest is held to be valid. [S. 115JB, 234B]

Fiserv India P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020)80 ITR 3 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Unexplained money-Cash deposits in bank account-Reasons for reopening of assessment recorded by concealing order-sheet entries-Reassessment not valid. [S. 69, 148]

Gulshan Harbans Dhingra v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 21 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Bogus purchases-No ad hoc addition can be made-Only difference between gross profit rate on genuine purchases and hawala purchases can be made. [S. 37 (1)]

Anil Jairam Goel v. ITO (2020) 80 ITR 47 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)