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)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices – Entire
additions deleted at appellate stage —Bona fide explanation- Penalty not leviable. [ S.142(1) ]

Sanjay Tyagi v. Dy. CIT (2020) 82 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty – Failure to comply with notices -Co-operating in assessment proceedings Attending- None of assessment orders ex -parte- Levy of penalty is held to be not valid .[ S.142(1) ]

Manu Rai (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib) Manish Rai v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib) Meena Devi Rai (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 22 (SN)(Indore) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Additional evidence — Should have been admitted .[ S. 147, 148 , 250 (6) ]

Kuldeep v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 35 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Duties – Ex -parte order – Bogus purchases – If assessee fails to defend case Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate appeal on basis of material on record [ S. 250 (6), 254(1) ]

Khimchand Okchand Bhansali v. ITO (2020) 82 ITR 34 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) -Duties – Ex -parte order -Mandatory procedure to formulate points in dispute and thereafter record reasons on such points — Failure to appear on appointed day , CIT (A ) cannot dismiss the appeal in Limine – He ought to have decided on merits . [ S. 131, 250(6) ]

Ashokkumar Kalubhai Nakrani v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 7 (SN) (Surat) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment – Search- No incriminating material was found in the course of search – Addition is held to be not valid [ S.37(1) 132, 143(3) ]

Frontier Commercial Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 25 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Cash deposit in bank in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs – Salary income lower than the threshold limit – Information available with Assessing Officer vague and without any proper identification and quantification of escaped income — Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.148 ]

Vipul Virendrakumar Patel v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 32 (SN)(Ahd ) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Capital gains- HUF – Individual – No direction was given buy the Appellate Tribunal – Reassessment is held to be not valid .[ S.148 ]

Narayan Singh, HUF v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 18 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- Capital gains- No failure to disclose any material facts – The reason must specify the nature of default or failure on the part of the assessee- Reassessment is not valid [ S.45 , 148 ]

Ramotar Singh, HUF v. ITO (2020)82 ITR 20 (SN) (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 144 : Best judgment assessment – Books of account audited – Income estimated on the basis of estimate basis is held to be not justified – Income has to be determined as per the audited books of account in accordance with law [ S.271B ]

Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020)82 ITR 31 (SN) (Hyd) (Trib)