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.269UD: Purchase of property by Central Government – Order by appropriate authority for purchase by Central Government of Immoveable property – Chapter XX-C- Constitutional validity of the said chapter – Principles of natural justice to be followed though not specifically provided – Adverse order to be supported with reasons – Interpretation of statues – Rule of reading down the provision .[ S. 269UA , 269UC, 269UE ]
C. B. Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530/110 CTR 179/65 Taxman 440 (SC)
S. 263: Revision by Commissioner – Assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue when two views are possible – two views should exist at the time when the revision order is passed [ S.80HHC ]
CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282/213 CTR 266/(2008) 166 Taxman 188/204 Taxation 1 (SC)
S.262: Appeal to Supreme Court – New ground relating to same issue allowed to be raised for the first time – Pure question of law
[ S.43B , West Bengal Excise (Manufacture of Country Spirit in Labelled and Capsuled Bottles) Rules, 1979 , R .6 ]
CIT v. Varas International P. Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 80/204 CTR 120/155 Taxman 202 (SC)
S.261 : Appeal to Supreme Court – Doctrine of merger – Dismissal of special leave petition – Dismissal of Appeal – Grant of interest free loan or loan at a concessional rate of interest does not result in benefit or perquisite to the employee [S. 17(2) 40A(5), Constitution of India , Art, 133, 136 ]
V. M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 383/160 CTR 225/110 Taxman 67 (SC)
S.260A : Appeal to High Court – Before pronouncing judgment the substantial question of law must be formulated – If the High Court is of the view that an appeal also involves any other substantial question of law other than that formulated earlier, it should for reasons to be recorded, first formulate the question and then hear the same – amount received towards non-compete covenant is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax [ S.4 , 28(ii)(a), 260A(4) , Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.100 ]
Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT (2020) 425 ITR 420/315 CTR 601/117 taxmann.com 871 (SC)
S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from record – Not considering the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal is a mistake apparent from records.
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466/165 Taxman 307/213 CTR 425 (SC)
S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Effect of not considering decision of Jurisdictional High Court / Supreme Court
ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227/12 DTR 346/219 CTR 90/173 Taxman 322 (SC)
S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal – Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Non consideration of paper book filed is a mistake apparent from the record – Direction to hear the appeal afresh considering the documents already filed in the paper book
Nisha Synthetics Ltd. v CIT (2017) 145 DTR 345/291 CTR 328 (SC)
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Precedent – Judicial discipline demands that subordinate authorities shall accept the decisions of Tribunal as binding precedent [ Constitution of India , Art . 136 , Customs Act , 1962 ,S 17, 130E (b) ]
Khalid Automobiles v. UOI (1995) Supp.(4) SCC 652/1997 96 ELT 509 (SC) MANU/SC/1518/1995
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties – Precedent – Judicial discipline – Orders of the constitutional bench binding on subsequent bench – All courts and Tribunals shall follow the judicial discipline in letter and spirit [Customs Act , 1962 ,S,. 25, 130E (b) . Central Excise Act, 1944 , S. 35]
Gammon India Ltd. v. CCES, Mumbai 2011 (269) ELT 289 (SC)/(2011) 12 SCC 499/MANU/SC/0739/2011