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. 4: Charge of income tax – Hindu undivided family – Inheritance – Hindu undivided family ceases to exist without male presence – Inherited property taxable in individual hands.

CIT v. (Smt.) Sandhya Rani Dutta (2001) 248 ITR 201 / 115 Taxman 369 /166 CTR 208 (SC)

S.4: Charge of income-tax – Diversion of income by overriding title or application of Income. [ Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.3 ]

CIT v. Sitaldas Tirthaldas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC)

S. 271F : Penalty – Return of income – Failure to furnish – Agriculturist – Bonafide belief that income not chargeable to tax – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified [ S. 139(1) 273B ]

Arjun Dada Kharate v . Dy.CIT (2020)81 ITR 68 (SN) (Pune) (Trib) Bhima Dada Kharate v Dy. CIT (2020)81 ITR 68 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Initiation of penalty proceedings on both charges – Penalty levied on a specific charge of concealing particulars of income —Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [ Explanation 5A ]

Sarla Mundra (Smt.) v .Dy. CIT (2020 81 ITR 65 (SN) (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Capital gains- Bonafide belief – Sale not complete – Failure to disclose capital gains- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .[ S.45 ]

Ravindra Anant Bhuskute v ITO (2020)81 ITR 40 (SN) (Pune ) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Revision —Housing project —Method of accounting – Adopting Percentage Completion Method And Project- Revision is held to be not valid . [S. 145 ]

Surekha Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v PCIT (2020)81 ITR 24 (SN( Ctk) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Limitation – Service of order not relevant passing of order is relevant – Not given sufficient opportunity to give reply – Natural justice violated – Order quashed [ S.263(2) ]

Jaidurga Minerals v. PCIT (2020) 81 ITR 67 (SN)/ 208 TTJ 96/ ( 2021) 200 DTR 205 (Cuttack ) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Revision —No discussion in assessment order- Mere extraction of submissions would not show assessing Officer applied his mind — Revision is held to be valid .[ S.80IA ]

Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 81 ITR 48 (SN) (Pune) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Income from holiday home- Income from business or Income from other sources – Income from house property – Revision is held to be not valid [ S. 22, 28(i) , 56 ]

Electro Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. v PCIT (2020)81 ITR 17 (SN) ( Kol) ) (Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) –Challenging entire Additions- Commissioner (Appeals) Considering only two out of seven items — Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh . [ S.57 , 251 , 254(1) ]

Regunathan Venkata Rajendran v. ACIT (2020) 81 ITR 71 (SN) ( Bang) (Trib)