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

Constitution of India 1949

Art .141 :Precedents – Binding nature -Decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength- A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum – Subject to discretion of the Chief justice to refer the matter to larger Bench or assign the matter to a particular Bench to decide the issue . [ Consumer Protection Act 1986 , S.13(2)(a) ]

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hill Multi purpose Cold Storage P. Ltd. AIR 2016 SC 86

Transfer of property Act 1882

S.54: Sale – Power of Attorney – Sale of immovable property through execution of power of attorney sale agreement/general power of attorney/will instead of execution and registration of regular deeds of conveyance deprecated as illegal and irregular – The illegal and irregular process of `Power of Attorney Sales’ spawns several disputes relating to possession and title, and also results in criminal complaints and cross complaints and extra-legal enforcement and forced settlements by land mafia.Therefore request the Solicitor General to appear in the matter and give suggestions on behalf of Union of India. : [Indian Registration Act ,1908 , S.17, 49 ,Power of Attorney Act ,1882 S.2 ]

Suraj Lamp & Inds. (P) Ltd Thru DIR v. State of Haryana & Anr AIR 2009 SC 3077

Indian Stamps Act,1899,

S.54: Stamp Papers – Use of old stamp papers i.e., stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to proposed date of execution may certainly be a circumstance that can be used as a piece of evidence to cast doubt on authenticity of agreement but that cannot be clinching evidence to invalidate the agreement. [ S.47, Indian Evidence Act , 1872 , S.45, 73 ]

Thiruvengadam Pillai v Navaneethammal and Anr (2008) 4 SCC 530.

Indian Registration Act ,1908 .

S.47: Registered Document – Operates from date of its execution – Not from the date of its Registration [ S.17 ]

Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka and Ors. v. Ragini Narayan and Ors. AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 4545

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income -Not earned any tax-exempt during the relevant assessment year – Mixed funds – No disallowance can be made .[ S.80D (2)(ii) ]

Dy.CIT v JSW Ltd ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 565 79 ITR 585 / 183 ITD 148/ 189 DTR 15/205 TTJ 1 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties Order –Limitation – Pronouncement – The period of 90 days should be computed by excluding at least the period during which the lockdown due to Covid-19 was in force. [ITATR. 34(5) ]

Dy.CIT v JSW Ltd ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 565 79 ITR 585 / 183 ITD 148/ 189 DTR 15/ 205 TTJ 1 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org

Indian Partnership Act, 1932

S.37 : Rights of outgoing partner in certain cases to share subsequent profits – Retirement – Dissolution -Mode of settlement of accounts – When there are only two partners and one has agreed to retire, then the retirement amounts to dissolution of the firm . [ S.48 ]

There is a clear distinction between ‘retirement of a partner’ and ‘dissolution of a partnership firm’. On retirement of the partner, the reconstituted firm continues and the retiring partner is to be paid his dues in terms of Section 37 of the Partnership Act. In case of dissolution, accounts have to be settled and distributed as per the mode prescribed in Section 48 of the Partnership Act. When the partners agree to dissolve a partnership, it is a case of dissolution and not retirement A partnership firm must have at least two partners. When there are only two partners and one has agreed to retire, then the retirement amounts to dissolution of the firm . Accounts to be settled as it amounts to dissolution of firm . Trial Court was directed to pass the final decree in accordance with law .(CANOS. 6659 -6660 of 2010 dt 26 -5- 2020 ) Guru Nanak Industries v Amar Singh , Through LRS ( SC) www.itatonline.org .

Indian Contract Act , 1872 .

S.56 : Agreement to do impossible Act – An agreement to do an impossible Act is void -Doctrine of “Force Majeure” & “Frustration of Contract” – The effect of the doctrine of frustration is that it discharges all the parties from future obligations . [ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 .S 37 ]

South East Asia Marine v Oil India Ltd . AIR 2020 SC 2323; (2020) 5 SCC 164; MANU/SC/0441/2020 (SC. AIR 2020 SC 2323; (2020) 5 SCC 164; MANU/SC/0441/2020 (SC(SC) www.itatonline.prg

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Video conferencing – Attachment of bank account lifted and stay against coercive recovery granted. [ S.226 (3) ]

Pandhes Infracon Pvt Ltd v ACIT ( 2020) 116 taxmann.com 376 (Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline.org Editorial : ITAT Mumbai created history by hearing a stay petition, on humane ground during period of complete lockdown, through video conferencing from home offices of Coram Members.

S.241A: Refund- Withholding of refund in certain cases – Satisfaction to be recorded by the AO – The withholding of refund requires the previous approval of the PCIT with reasons to be recorded in writing.- When assessment pursuant to notice under section 143(2) was pending and likelihood of substantial demands upon assessee after completion of scrutiny could not be ruled out, refund claim could not be allowed – When no action is initiated the Court directed the revenue to grant the refunds with in four weeks . [ S.143(1) 143(2) 245 ]

Vodafone Idea Ltd ( Earlier Known as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd) v .ACIT (2020)424 ITR 664/ 189 DTR 26/ 315 CTR 1 / 273 Taxman 91 / 116 taxmann.com 393 ( SC) www.itatonline.org Editorial : Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd v ACIT ( 2018) 100 taxmann.com 310 / ( 2019) 260 Taxman 417 (Delhi) (HC ) is affirmed .