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. 5 : Scope of total income – Accrual of income — Cash compensatory assistance and duty drawback —Not sanctioned to assessee during relevant year by customs authorities — Income did not accrue- Not taxable. [ S.145 ]
CIT(LTU) v. Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. (2020) 427 ITR 166 / 227 Taxman 224 /192 DTR 376 (Karn)(HC)
S. 271C : Penalty – Failure to deduct at source -Leave travel allowance – Reasonable cause -Penalty not warranted[ S. 10 (5) , 133A ,273B ]
State Bank Of India v. Add. CIT (2020)78 ITR 636 ( Bang) (Trib)/State Bank of India v .Add. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 11 (SN)(Bang) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not representing before CIT (A) – Matter remanded to CIT (A) [S. 250 ,254 (1) ]
United Tropicon Veneers P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 78 ITR 299( Cochin) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Notice not specifying charge -Natural justice — Show-cause notice void ab initio- Levy of penalty is not valid [ S.274 ]
Risha Tour And Travels v. ITO (2020) 78 ITR 77 (Luck ) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Not specifying the charge- Notice vague — Levy of penalty not sustainable.[ S.274 ]
Rajendra Kumar Khandelwal v. Dy. CIT (2020)78 ITR 252( Jaipur) (Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Failure to furnish details of persons from whom donations received — Not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income — Penalty not leviable . [ S. 11, 132 ]
Meenakshi Ammal Trust v .ACIT (2020)78 ITR 138 / 186 DTR 257/203 TTJ 785 (Chennai) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – -Fees from students -Explanation was furnished at the original assessment proceedings – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.2(15)),12A,143(3) ]
Shugan Chandra Kothari Trust v. CIT(E) (2020)78 ITR 340 ( Delhi) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Source of funds from abroad —Commissioner not conducting enquiry to find order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue — Revision not valid.
Seth Madan Lal Palriwala Foundation v. CIT (E) (2020)78 ITR 436 / 196 DTR 169( Delhi) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Prior period income – Disclosure before Settlement Commission —Neither erroneous nor causing prejudice to interests of revenue – Revision is held to be not valid . [ S.43B 115JB ]
Maithan Steel and Power Ltd. v. PCIT (2020)78 ITR 532 / 208 TTJ 334(Kol) (Trib)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Business expenditure – Provision for warranty – Record includes all documents available with department even for earlier years- Revision is held to be not valid. [ S .92CA(4),144C(3), 263(1b) ]
SL Lumax Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 78 ITR 1 (SN) ( Chennai ) (Trib )