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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Loan against property -Interest capitalized – Inadvertently claimed in the return as deduction – Levy of penalty is not valid .

UMG Properties P. Ltd. v .ACIT (2020)80 ITR 448 ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Not specifying a specific charge – Levy of penalty is not valid .[ S.69B]

Laxman Nainani v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 1 / ( 2021 ) 210 TTJ 562 / 204 DTR 97 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Recording of satisfaction-Failure to state specific charge of penalty —Penalty deleted . [ S.274 ]

Hindon Forge P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 545 (Delhi ) (Trib)

S.271(1) ( c): Penalty — Concealment of income —Addition on basis of which penalty levied was deleted – Penalty will not survive .

Dy. CIT v. Galderma India Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 80 ITR 452( Mum) (Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Gratuity and exhibition expenses – Genuineness of expenses not doubted -Failure to deduct tax at source- Levy of penalty is held to be not justified .

Arrow Digital P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2020) 80 ITR 360 (Ahd) (Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Interest on Arbitration Award reduced while computing taxable income — Offering income in the year of receipts – Revision is held to be not valid [ S.4, 145 ]

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v PCIT (2020) 80 ITR 410 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- No case made out for stay of demand – Irreparable loss and financial difficulties — Stay petition dismissed [ S.254(1)]

G. Hemalatha (Smt.) v .ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 456 (Chennai) (Trib)

S.254(1): Appellate Tribunal – Orders – Period of the first national lock-down from March 25, 2020 to April 19, 2020, when offices were not allowed to be physically opened, was excluded the period within which this order was pronounced was within 90 days.

K. Srikanth v .ACIT (2020) 80 ITR 272 / 195 DTR 17/206 TTJ 273 ( Chennai ) (Trib)

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Remand by Tribunal -Inspector of Income-Tax not competent to issue enhancement notice —Order enhancing income not sustainable [ S. 69C, 251(2) ]

Green Valley Infracity P. Ltd. v .ITO (2020) 80 ITR 388 / 193 DTR 201/ 207 TTJ 339(SM) ( Delhi) (Trib)

S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax – Failure by payer to deduct tax at source — Interest cannot be imposed.

General Motors Overseas Corporation v. ACIT (IT) (2020) 80 ITR 478/ 207 TTJ 404 (Mum) (Trib)