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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Vague allegation-Not specifying specific charge-0levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 274]
Harshvardhan v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 81 (SN) / 195 DTR 145/ 206 TTJ 894(Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Inapplicable words in notice not struck off-Penalty order not specifying exactly under which limb penalty is levied-Penalty is held to be unjustified. [S. 274]
Dibyajyoti Chemicals P. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 77 ITR 40 (SN) (Cuttack) (Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Survey–Surrender of income– No difference between returned income and assessed income– Penalty is not leviable–As regards non disclosure of rental income-Penalty is leviable. [S. 22, 133A]
Rajendra Shringi v. Dy. CIT (2020) 77 ITR 85 (SN) (Jaipur)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Sale of fixed asset-Slump sale-Amount not offered as income-Levy of penalty is justified-Not striking off relevant limb of notice–Reply filed in response to notice –Presumption is that the assessee has understood the notice. [S. 50B, 50C, 274]
Muthukumaran Rangarajan v. ITO (2020) 77 ITR 421/ 185 ITR 365 / 192 DTR 263/ 206 TTJ 746 (Chennai) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Doctrine of merger-Revision on issues not subject matter of reassessment but pertaining to original assessment-Limitation would run from date of order of original assessment and not from date of order of reassessment-Revision barred by limitation. [S. 143(3), 147, 263(2)]
Shyam Steel Manufacturing Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)77 ITR 37 (SN) (Kok.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Sequence of events such as sale, purchase and other consequential transactions not discussed by AO-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 54F]
Muzaffer Mahmood Khan v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 62 (SN) (Pune) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Allowing depreciation at 100% and allowance of finance cost which is attributable to period prior to commencement of business-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 32, 37(1)]
Delhi Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 22 (SN)/185 DTR 185 /203 TTJ 359 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Limited scrutiny–AO is bound to make prima facie enquiry– Revision is held to be valid–Capital or revenue-On merit foreign exchange loss for acquiring capital asset is held to be allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 43(1), 143(1)]
Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 184 DTR 361/ 202 TTJ 913 / (2020) 77 ITR 484 (SN) (Cochin.) (Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Lack of enquiry and non application of mind–Revision is held to be valid – Repayment of brought forward loan–Revision is held to be not valid–Revision is up held partially. [S. 2(22)(e), 43B, 68]
Anand Lilaram Raisinghani v. PCIT (2020) 77 ITR 431 (Mum.)(Trib.)