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. 271AAA : Penalty-Search initiated on or after 1st June, 2007- AO must establish there was undisclosed income-Estimated income not undisclosed income-No specific finding in respect of any specific seized material or undisclosed income detected as a result of search-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 132]
Dy. CIT v. Himanshu Verma (2019) 76 ITR 698 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Notice–No specific charge and limb under which penalty proposed–Concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income–Notice void ab intio. [S. 274]
Rajendra Kumar and Co. v. DCIT (2019)75 ITR 73 (Lucknow) (Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Loss of equipment-Forfeiture of security deposit–Revenue or capital expenditure-Debatable issue-Full disclosure during the assessment proceedings–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid.
Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 75 ITR 48 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Mere claim–Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Levy of penalty is not justified – Delay of 229 days condoned due to health ground. [S. 10(13A), 254(1)]
Pradipta Kumar Das v. ACIT (2019) 75 ITR 85 (Chennai)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–In the absence of evidence to suggest concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty cannot be levied.
Punjab Sind Dairy Product (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 180 DTR 203 /199 TTJ 929 (Mum.) (Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Where income was offered in the return and tax paid thereon, penalty could not be levied. [S. 153A, 271AAA]
Kulwant Singh & Ors. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 180 DTR 177 / 104 taxmann.com 340 / 199 TTJ 545 (Chd.)(Trib.)
S. 268A : Appeal–Monetary Limits for filing an appeal–Appeal dismissed for low tax effect–Penalty–limitation-The order passed by the AO is beyond the period of six months, thus barred by limitation. [S. 271(1)(c), 275(1)(a)]
ITO(E) v. A. P. S. Academy (2019)75 ITR 563 (Lucknow)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of Orders prejudicial to revenue-Agricultural land claimed to have been purchased by the assessee which is prohibited under Land Reforms Act of State of Rajasthan, not eligible for deduction under section 54B–AO did not consider the crucial basis before allowing deduction-Revision rightly invoked by PCIT. [S. 54B]
Ram Charan Meena. v. PCIT (2019) 182 DTR 268 / 201 TTJ 1004 / 73 ITR 568 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-limitation for revision should not be counted from the date of original assessment order-MAT credit of the amalgamating company can be claimed by amalgamated company-Revision is held to be valid.
Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 182 DTR 327 / 202 TTJ 1077 / 179 ITD 436 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner–Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue– Commissioner should make independent enquiries to reach a conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue–In absence of independent enquiry, CIT(E) order set aside. [S. 11, 12, 28(iii), 143(3)]
National Association of Software and Services Companies (‘Nasscom’) v. CIT(E) (2019) 201 TTJ 39 / 56 CCH 532 / 181 DTR 73 (Delhi.)(Trib.)