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. 145A : Method of accounting–Valuation-MODVAT credit does not have any impact on profit of assessee and thus, unutilised MODVAT credit could not be added to value of closing stock.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 776 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 120 : Jurisdiction of income-tax authorities-Additional Commissioner can function as an AO only when jurisdiction has been assigned to him-No directions or orders assessment order passed by Additional Commissioner was illegal and without jurisdiction. [S. 120(4)(b), 124]

Nasir Ali v. ACIT (2020) 181 ITD 30 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 80HHC : Export business–Sale of scrap-Income from such scrap would tantamount to recoupment of cost of raw material/production and, therefore, was includible in profits of business.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 776 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Labour expenses-ad hoc disallowance-Held to be not justified. [S. 145]

ITO v. Swati Housing & Construction (P.) Ltd. (2020) 180 ITD 854 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money–Bank deposits–Evidence was not considered–Matter remanded. [S. 45]

Raghubir Singh v. ITO (2020) 180 ITD 719 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Gifts from father–Source explained–Addition is deleted.

Kuldeep Singh v. ITO (2020) 180 ITD 749/ 185 DTR 10/ 203 TTJ 242 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Sundry creditors-From earlier years-No addition can be made.

ITO v. Swati Housing & Construction (P.) Ltd. (2020) 180 ITD 854 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits–Books of account-No addition can be made owing to difference in income based on Form No. 26AS and income as reflected in books of account maintained by assessee. [S. 145]

D M Estates (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2020) 180 ITD 813 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Perpetual lease–Purchase of property-Entitle for exemption. [S. 2(47)(vi), 45, 269UA]

N. Ramaswamy v. ITO (2020) 180 ITD 702 / 190 DTR 374/ 205 TTJ 803(Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 54F : Capital gains-Investment in a residential house-Purchase of flat-Mere fact that assessee was one of associated parties in said concern which was developing housing project, could not be a ground to deny benefit of deduction.[S. 45]

Lalitkumar Kesarimal Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394 / 180 ITD 832 / 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune)(Trib.) Kruti Lalit Kumar Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394/ 180 ITD 832/ 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune) (Trib.) Pranay Lalit Kumar Jain v. DCIT (2020) 77 ITR 394/ 180 ITD 832 / 190 DTR 424/ 205 TTJ 753 (Pune) (Trib.)