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-Penalty Notice bad in law-If limb under which penalty has been initiated not specified. [S. 274]

Manjeet Kaur Sran (Mrs.) v. Dy. CIT (2019) 76 ITR 57 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Limitation-Delay of more than 9 months in service of the order passed is beyond time limit allowed under the Act, hence, unsustainable-Department failed to produce evidence to show that order passed and dispatched within reasonable time-Order is held to be barred by limitation.

Chebolu Lakshmi (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 4 (SN.) (Vishakha) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Reopening found bad in law–No revision is possible. [S. 147, 148, 254(1)]

SPJ Hotels (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30 / 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.) Supersonic Technologies (P) Ltd. v. PCIT ((2019) 175 DTR 30 / 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.) Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30 //69 ITR 585/ 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.) Super Build well (P) Ltd v. PCIT (2019) 175 DTR 30 / 69 ITR 585 / 197 TTJ 889 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Assessment completed by AO under section 143(3) of the Act-CIT sought revision-Tribunal held that AO had duly applied his mind by accepting the valuation method of Assessee and hence quashed revision proceedings. [S. 143(3)]

Mohammed Salim Yusuf v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 70 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision based on proposal from AO impermissible-Without Application of mind-Revision not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. [S. 143(3)]

Manish Chirania v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 7 (SN) (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-operative societies–Interest income derived by co-operative society from investments held with co-operative bank entitled for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act–AO had taken a possible view and hence reassessment proceeding is quashed. [S. 2(19), 80P(2)(d)]

Solitaire CHS Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 76 ITR 59 (SN) (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limited scrutiny–PCIT cannot look into issue which the AO himself was barred from looking into in original assessment. [S. 143(1)]

Padmavathi (Smt.) v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 55 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Powers-Non appeared for the assessee/appellant–Notice sent–Appeal not admitted-Liberty to the assessee to move application as per proviso to rule 24. [S. 253, ITATR. 19(2), 24]

Jai International v. Dy. CIT (2019) 177 DTR 236 /199 TTJ 676 (Jodpur)(Trib.)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Amendment in making electronic filing of appeal mandatory-change in law introduced at about the same time and possibility that assessee may not be conversant with technical aspects-Opportunity to be given to assessee for filing of appeal in accordance with law. [S.251, R.45]

Amigo Finstock P. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 76 ITR 61 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Other sums–remittance-in nature of reimbursement of cost–necessary documents to be examined-restored to AO for de novo adjudication. [S. 195(2)]

BASF India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2019) 174 DTR 16 /197 TTJ 724 (Mum.)(Trib.)