S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house –The usage of the property has to be considered-Several independent residential units in the same building have to be treated as one residential unit and there is no impediment to allowance of exemption u/s 54F(1) [ S.45 ]
Navin Jolly v. ITO (2020) 424 ITR 462 / 192 DTR 385/ 316 CTR 329 / 272 Taxman 348( Karn) (HC) www.itatonline .org
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – The amendment to S. 40(a)(ia) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015, which restricts the disallowance for failure to deduct TDS to 30% of the expenditure instead of 100%, is curative in nature and should be applied retrospectively [ S.194H ]
Muradul Haque v. ITO ( 2020 ) 117 taxmann.com 251(Delhi (Trib) www.itatonline .org .Principle of Natural Justice -Direct taxes – Important case laws .
CIT v Odeon Builders ( P ) Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC)Indian Evidence Act ,1872
S.3 : Natural Justice – Right of cross examination – Is integral part of Natural justice though not provided under the statute – Affidavit of own is not evidence with in meaning of S. 3 of the Evidence Act , 1872 .
S. 143(3) : Assessment – Limited scrutiny cannot be taken for complete scrutiny unless the AO forms a reasonable view that there is a possibility of under assessment of income – Approval by the PCIT in a mechanical manner is not valid – S.292BB does not save the infirmity – Order is quashed as a nullity . [ S. 292BB ]
Dev Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd v .Dy.CIT (Delhi ) (Trib) www.itatonline .orgS. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Business expenditure – Full particulars were declared in the return – Merely because disallowance of expense , levy of penalty is held to be not justified on merit -Not sticking of inapplicable portion in the notice -In assessment order it was clearly mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) had been initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.- Penalty cannot be quashed only on technical ground not sticking of inapplicable portion in the notice [ S.37(1), 274 ]
Ventura Textiles Ltd v. CIT (2020) 426 ITR 478 / 315 CTR 729 /190 DTR 165/ 274 Taxman 144 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Question of law – can be entertained by the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction even if the same was not raised before the Tribunal- The question relating to non-striking off of the inapplicable portion in the s. 271(1)(c) show-cause notice goes to the root of the lis & is a jurisdictional issue . [ S.271(1) (c ) 274 ]
Ventura Textiles Ltd v. CIT (2020) (2020) 426 ITR 478 / 315 CTR 729 /190 DTR 165 / 274 Taxman 144 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .orgS. 68 : Cash credits -Commission business- Accommodation entries – Failure to explain the source of deposits in the bank – Addition cannot be made as cash credits – Estimation of commission income by the Tribunal is held go be justified . [ S.132 ]
PCIT v Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Mahasagar Securities and Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd.) (2020) 425 ITR 658/192 DTR 88/ 315 CTR 905/ 272 Taxman 241 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.orgLimitation Act, 1963
S.5: Appeal – Condonation of delay of 554 days -Mentally disturbed – Prolonged illness and hospitalization – Sufficient for condonation.
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
S.4: Benami – Joint family property – Benami Transaction – Since the property is a joint family property and the claim only seeks to proclaim the property as joint family property and not to claim the property to be their own property, the rigor of S..4 of the Benami Act cannot have any application to the facts of the case.