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: Exemptions – Trust was not engaged in running the restaurant, bar etc. – Exemption is held to be allowable.

CIT(E) v. Matoshri Arts & Sports Trust. (Bom) (HC) (UR) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed (SLP No.17828 of 2019 dt.26/07/2019)(2019) 416 ITR 127 (St.)(SC)

S.2 (14)(a): Capital asset –Advance given to subsidiary – Loss – Held to be allowable as short term capital loss [S. 2(42A) ,2(47)]

CIT v. Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems Gmbh (2020) 114 taxmann.com 531 (Bom)(HC) Editorial : SLP oof Revenue dismissed , CIT (IT) v. Siemens Nixdorf Information Systemse Gmbh (2023)453 ITR 741 / 293 Taxman 1 (SC)

S. 271F : Penalty-Return of income-Failure to furnish – Refund return-Penalty is not leviable. [S.139(4), 244A]

Rajesh Ajjavara v. ITO (TDS) (2020) 77 ITR 14 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty–Takes or accepts any loan or deposit–Gift transactions between husband and wife-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 269SS, 269T, 271E, 273B]

Savita S. Gangadshetti (Smt.) v. JCIT (2020) 77 ITR 79 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271D : Penalty–Takes or accepts any loan or deposit–Money returned to father–Receipt of money from family members for medical emergency–Receipt of money from member of association for building school-Neither loan or advances–Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 269SS, 273B]

Gourang Chandra Nayak v. Jt. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 192 (SN) (Cuttack) (Trib.)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Not maintaining books of account-Penalty for not getting books audited could not be levied –Penalty for failure to maintain books of account is restricted to Rs. 25000. [S. 44AB, 271A]

Mukti Roy (Smt.) v. ITO (2020)77 ITR 20 (SN) (Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited–Civil contractor– Failure to keep and maintain books of account-No prescribed format for maintenance of books of account-Levy of penalty is not justified either u/s 271A or u/s 271B of the Act. [S. 44AB, 271A]

Harshvardhan v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 81 (SN) / 195 DTR 145/ 206 TTJ 894 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-In statement admits undisclosed income and specifies manner in which such income derived-No undisclosed income-Penalty not leviable. [S. 132(4)]

Harshvardhan v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 81 (SN)/ 195 DTR 145/ 206 TTJ 894 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Concealment–Search and seizure–Undisclosed income-Disallowances cannot automatically lead to penalty–levy of 10% penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 132, 271(1)(c)]

Ajanta Pharma Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 555 / 187 DTR 159/ 204 TTJ 341 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Receipt of additional income not disclosed prior to search-Levy of penalty is justified–AO not sure on which count he intends to levy penalty-Two situations contradictory to each other-Returned and assessed income the Same and revised income accepted-Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 132, 153A]

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena v. ACIT (2020)77 ITR 44 (SN) (Cuttack) (Trib.)