Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Indian Evidence Act 1872.
S.56: Evidence – Subsequent Events during litigation – Having direct bearing on the issue can be considered by the Court even if it is produced for the first time. [ Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 ,S. 36 ]
Dinshaw Rusi Mehta v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1557S.91: Agreement of sale fixing a specific amount as price-On money- Builders- A mere suspicion on the builders that they accepted sale amount in cash could not be accepted. [ S.92 ]
Bhandari Construction Co. v. Narayan Gopal Upadhye (2007) 3 SCC 163S. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007–Previous year ended before date of search and the date of filing pf return of income u/s. 139(1) had also been expired–Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 139(1)]
S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122 / 203 TTJ 650(Chennai) (Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Charitable Trust–Donation-Details of the persons from whom the donations were received could not be furnished–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 11]
Meenakshi Ammal Trust v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 257 / 78 ITR 138 / 203 TTJ 785 (Chennai)(Trib.)S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Addition on estimate basis– Levy of penalty is held to be not justified-Un accounted cash transaction-Levy of penalty is held to be justified–Disallowances u/s.40(a)(ia)–Levy of penalty is held to be justified. [S. 40(a)(ia), 153A]
S & P Foundations (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2020) 186 DTR 122/ 203 TTJ 650 (Chennai) (Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Closing stock-Limited scrutiny–What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly-PCIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with the AO while framing the assessment [S. 115JB, 142(1), 143(3)]
Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 185 DTR 1 / 203 TTJ 137 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation–Cash credits–Share capital–No material was placed during assessment proceedings to prove genuineness of share capital issued at premium-Revision order is held to be valid. [S. 143(3), 153(1)]
Rissala Décor (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2020) 186 DTR 73 / 203 TTJ 521(Delhi)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-No change in tax liability–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 45(2), 48, 50C, 54EC]
Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta v. PCIT (2020) 185 DTR 385 /203 TTJ 643 (Jaipur)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Interest received by head office is chargeable to tax or not is a debatable issue-Revision cannot be initiated on the basis of retrospective amendment as the AO has to proceed on the basis of law prevailing as on the date of assessments-Revision is held to be not valid-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(v)(c), Art.14(6)]
JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Dy.CIT (2020) 185 DTR 305 /203 TTJ 443 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-The AO failed to make any inquiry on vital aspects while admitting the claim of the assessee and allowing the claim summarily-Revision is held to be justified-The AO could not expand the scope of inquiry while passing the order under s.143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. [S. 54B, 143(3)]
Riddhish B. Trivedi v. CIT (2020) 186 DTR 41 / 203 TTJ 634 (Ahd.)(Trib.)