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. 271G : Penalty – Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing – Unless and until a specific defect is pointed out in documents submitted, penalty cannot be levied. [S.92D(3), R.10D(i)]

Procter & Gamble Home Products (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 180 ITD 194 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Provision for expenditure – Contingent-provision was certified by auditors as well as approved by shareholders of company-Revision to disallow the provision as contingent id held to be not valid. [S. 37(1), 145]

Vedanta Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 180 ITD 8 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence– Revision is held to be valid as the conditions of S. 54(2) had been violated as the assessee had not invested the capital gain in purchasing a new residential house before the due date of filing of return under S. 139(1) of the Act-Judgement of jurisdictional High Court is followed. [S.45, 54, 139(1), 139(4), 139(5)]

Rajan Gumba Telang v. PCIT (2020) 180 ITD 184/ 187 DTR 385/ 204 TTJ 479 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Investment in residential house-Position prior to 1-4-2015: Multiple residential units are included within sphere of S. 54F of the Act-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

Minal Nayan Shah (Smt.) v. PCIT (2020) 180 ITD 149 (Ahd.)(Trib.) Editorial : Affirmed in PCIT v. Minal Nayan Shah (2020) 428 ITR 23 (Guj)(HC)

S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record–Review of order is not permissible-Rectification application of the revenue is dismissed.[S.40A(3)]

ITO v. Sakun Aggarwal. (2020) 180 ITD 68/ 187 DTR 65/ 204 TTJ 129 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Powers–CIT (A) cannot dismiss appeal against penalty merely stating that in quantum proceedings additions has been confirmed; in penalty appeal, he has to mention point for determination again and reasons for levy-Matter remanded. [S.271(1)(c)].

NIIT Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 141 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 246 : Appeal-Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Order passed by AO giving effect to directions of Tribunal, is an appealable order before CIT(A). [S.246A, 254(1)]

Narendra Solvex (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 180 ITD 64 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Share premium-Two share holders-Brothers-Excess benefit was passed on to assessee was out of shareholding held by his brother-Provisions of S. 56(2)(viii)(c)(ii) would not apply-Balance sheet-Previous Balance Sheet which is audited and approved in AGM has to be taken into consideration, before allotment of shares. [S.56(2)(viii)(c)(ii), R.11U, 11UA].

ACIT v. Y. Venkanna Choudary. (2019) 180 ITD 166/ ( 2020) 186 DTR 239/ 203 TTJ 891 (Vishakha)(Trib.)

S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-variation is only 1.49%-Value declared to be adopted-Amendment brought in section 55A(a) by Finance Act, 2012, has to be read prospectively; such amendment shall apply to transactions which are effected during period started on or after 1-7-2012. [S.45, 55A(a)]

ITO v. Bajaj Udyog. (2020) 180 ITD 77 / 204 TTJ 5/ 189 DTR 246 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 43D : Public financial institutions-NHB guidelines will not bring automatic corresponding change in rule 6EB since, discretion is left to rule making authority to follow or not follow NHB guidelines as and when they are revised–Addition is held to be not valid. [S. 145, R 6EB]

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2020) 180 ITD 45 (Mum.)(Trib.)