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. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Section 144C inserted by the Finance ( No.2) Act , 2009 with retrospective effect from Ist April , 2009 is prospective in nature and would not apply to AY. 2009 -10 or earlier assessment years – Order passed is beyond limitation hence null and void . [ S.143(3) 153(1) ]
Truetzschler India Ltd v DCIT ( 2020) BCAJ- November -P 55 (Mum)(Trib)
S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – Appellate Tribunal- Ground on pure question of law can be raised before the ITAT- Notice issued by the ITO who did not have a jurisdiction to issue notice – Statutory notice u/s 143(2) lacks jurisdiction and order is bad in law [ S. 143(3) 254(1) ]
DCIT v. Proficient Commodities Pvt Ltd ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal -June -P. 82 ( Kol) (Trib)
S. 131 : Power – Discovery – Production of evidence – Summons stating not to depart until permission granted – Violates fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India [ S.148, Constitution of India , 1950 Arts, 12 to 35 ]
Sri Naval Kishore Khaitan v. PCIT ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal-May- P. 86 ( AP) (HC)
S.68: Cash credits – Gift from father and brother – Agricultural income- Source of deposit explained – Addition is held to be not justified .
Lakadri Naidu v. ITO ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – September – P. 112 ( Hyd) (Trib)
S.68: Cash credits – Gift received by son- Source of cash deposits were explained – Addition cannot be made on the suspicion that source of source is doubtful.
Bhimanna Shrinivasa Rao v. ITO ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal – May – P. 90 ( Vishakha) (Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits – Firm -Partner- Capital brought in by partner – Agricultural income -Addition cannot be made in the assessment of the firm . [ S.2(31) (iv) ]
Keharwani Sheetalaya Sahsaon v. CIT ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 382 / 274 Taxman 25/191 DTR 339 / 315 CTR 815 ( All) (HC)
S. 50C : Capital gains – Full value of consideration – Stamp valuation – Addition cannot be made without referring the matter to DVO- Power of Attorney holder does not became the owner of property on signing the sale deed in the capacity as constituted attorney [ S.45 ]
Ramesh Govindbhai Patel v .ITO ( 2020) 118 taxman. com 201 ( Ahd) (Trib)
S. 45(2) : Capital gains – Conversion of a capital asset in to stock-in-trade – Asset received under family arrangement treated as stock in trade – Addition cannot be made as capital gains. [ S.2(14), 49(1)]
CIT v. C. Ramaiah Reddy ( 2020) 272 Taxman 342/ 117 taxmann.com 540/ 192 DTR 425/ 316 CTR 370 ( Karn) (HC)
S.45: Capital gains – Development rights – Business assets -Accrual of income – Provisions of Section 2(47) r.w.s 53A of the Transfer of property Act 1882 are not applicable to transfer of development rights held by assessee as business assets [ S. 2(47)(v),44AD, 145 , Transfer of Property Act , 1882 , S.53A]
ITO v. Abdul Kayam Ahmed Moham Tamboli ( 2020) The Chamber’s Journal -August P. 119 ( Mum) (Trib)