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. 28(i) : Business loss – Diminution in value of shares- loss claimed by assessee by devaluing book value of shares purchased by them, could not be allowed as business loss . [ S.37 (1) ]

Twenty First Century Management Services Ltd v ITO( 2019) 108 taxmann.585 (Mad) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed Twenty First Century Management Services Ltd v ITO ( 2019) 266 Taxman 1 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment – Change of opinion – Housing project – Produced full accounts and provided full details including built-up area of flats sold-Reopening of assessment on basis of same material would be mere change of opinion and hence not permissible. [ S.80IB(10) 148 , Art .226 ]

Runwal Realty (P.) Ltd v Dy.CIT ( 2019) 107 taxmann.com 284/ 266 Taxman 6 (Mag) ( Bom) (HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Deposited 71 per cent of tax demand raised in reassessment proceedings- Tribunal is not justrified in rejecting the stay – Balance amount of tax and interest was to be stayed till disposal of assessee appeal. [ S.226, 254(1) ]

Neetaa Suneel Shah (Smt.) v .ITO (2019) 266 Taxman 40/ 196 DTR 253/ 317 CTR 789 (Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – Legal represenntaive – Liability – Not inherited anything from his father- Huge deposits prior to death – Reassessment is held to be bad in law . [ S..144, 148 159, Art .226 ]

C. Naveen Kumar v .ITO ( 2019 ) 266 Taxman 74 ( Mad) (HC)

S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house – The assessee is entitled to the withdrawal of the amount deposited under Sub-Section (4) of Section 54F of the Act under the capital gain account subject to deduction of tax applicable to the case on hand. [ S.45, 54F(4) ]

P.N.Shetty v ITO ( 2019) 181 DTR 97/ 310 CTR 359/ 266 Taxman 15 ( Karn) (HC) Editorial: Affirmed in P.N. Shetty. v ITO (2020) 268 Taxman 226 (Karn) (HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing – Arm’s length price – Selection of comparables -Comparision with high brand value and higher scale of operations and profit margin to be excluded – Comparables have to be functionally similar but they should have similar business environment and risks as the tested party- Tribunal order is set aside .[ S.144C ]

;Avaya India P. Ltd v ACIT ( 2019) 416 ITR 638/ 310 CTR 633/ 182 DTR 89 / 267 Taxman 351 (Delhi) (HC).Editorial: SLP of revenue was dismissed due to low tax effect,ACIT v. Avaya India (P) Ltd. (2021) 277 Taxman 402 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Asset written off and factory land development charges – No allegation of failure to disclose material facts- No new facts- Notice of reassessment is held to be invalid .[ S. 148 ]

S. P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. ACIT (2019)418 ITR 703 / 183 DTR 321 / 267 Taxman 450/ 311 CTR 631 (Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Record – Pendency of appeal before CIT (A) -Order passed after considering all Details-Revision is held to be not valid .[ S. 40A(3), 250, 263 , Expln.1(c)]

CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels P. Ltd. (2019)418 ITR 723/( 2020) 186 DTR 205/ 314 CTR 555 (All (HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery – Assessee deemed in default – Stay – Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) – Application for stay of recovery can be made before the CIT(A) to stay the demand still disposal of appeal by the CIT (A) [ S. 115Q, 220 (6) , 246A, 264 , Art .226 ]

Grasim Industries Ltd v Dy.CIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 524/ 184 DTR 42 ( Bom) (HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake – Pendency of appeal or revision is no bar on the AO on power of amendment or rectification -Matter did not assume character of a sub-judice matter . [ S.154(IA) , Art .226 ]

Piramal Investment Opportinites Fund v ACIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 297/ 182 DTR 305/ 311 CTR 4 ( Bom) (HC)