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-Surrender of income voluntarily– Penalty cannot be levied.

Dy. CIT v. Shehla Ahmad (Smt.) (2019) 74 ITR 523 (Luck.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Recording of satisfaction-In applicable portions are not struck off-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.

PCIT v. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC), www. itatonline.org

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices-Alleged bank account not belong to assessee–No failure on part of assessee-No penalty can be levied. [S. 142(1)]

Charu Modi Bhartia v. DCIT (2019) 177 DTR 1/ 104 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices–Penalty is upheld based on assessee’s conduct and failure to comply with statutory notices but deleted the penalty for five years in the interest of justice. [S.132, 142(1)]

Commitment Mortality Vision Education Society v. ACIT (2019) 74 ITR 62(SN) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Share capital – share premium-AO conducted detailed inquiry–Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 133(6)]

Conton Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2019) 55 CCH 600 / 72 ITR 85 (Delhi) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Orders shall be passed without being influenced by any of the observation made or finding rendered by the Single Judge.

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 310 CTR 350 / 181 DTR 183 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Revision by CIT on the ground of over-valuation of shares of assessee for buy-back purposes—Directing the assessee to file necessary objections to the show-cause and such reply shall be considered by meeting out each and every objections raised, on merits and in accordance with law. [S. 92CA]

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 310 CTR 348 / 181 DTR 181 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Responded can depend the grounds, though no appeal id filed–Search and seizure–Jurisdiction issue. [S. 132, 153A, ITAT R. 27]

Dy. CIT v. Pacific Industries Ltd. (2019) 72 ITR 634 (Jodh.)(Trib.) Dy. CIT v. Pacific Leasing and Research Ltd. (2019) 72 ITR 634 (Jodh.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Remand Assessment-Order giving effect-AO must comply the direction of the Tribunal. [S.2(8), 143(3), 250]

Dy. CIT v. Punjab Beverages (P) Ltd. (2019) 174 DTR 329 (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Commissioner (Appeals)-Additional evidence-Evidence cannot be admitted without affording an opportunity to AO to cross-examine. [S. 250, R. 46A]

Dy. C. I. T. v. Roshan Lal Jindal (2019) 71 ITR 596 (Chd.)(Trib.)