Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/ Gujarat Goods an Services Act , 2017 .
GST – Search & Seizure- The action of the GST authorities of camping in the assessee’s home for 8 days and placing him under house arrest is illegal & a blatant abuse of powers. It has shocked the conscience of the court.
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 Appeal – Supreme Court -Condonation of delay- The special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 387 days with further delay of 302 days in refiling- This is one more case which we have defined as “Certificate Cases” – Administration directed to hold an inquiry into the aspect as to who is responsible for such inordinate delay and take suitable action against the officers concerned [ .Limitation Act ,1963, S.5 ]
Administrator, Jammu Municipality & Anr. v. Swarn Theatre and Ors. MANU/SCOR/04882/2020 (SC); www.itatonline.orgS. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Duties- Relying on the case laws not cited by both the parties- Not dealing with the case law cited by the representative of the assessee- Matter remanded to the Tribunal to pass the fresh order . [ S.80IB (10) ]
Bhavya Construction Co. v. ACIT (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS. 253 : Appellate Tribunal – Condonation of delay of 318 days- Delay “Useless advice” by a professional to not file appeal and to instead file a Cross Objection if Revenue filed the appeal cannot help the assessee because there was always going to be a chance that Revenue might not file appeal- Delay is not condoned .[ S.253(3), 254(1) ]
Boutique Hotel India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2020) 180 ITD 817 /187 DTR 353 / 204 TTJ 525 (Delhi)(Trib), www. Itatonline.orgS. 153A : Assessment – Search- Abated assessment- It is open to both parties, i.e. the assessee and revenue, to make new claims for allowance or disallowance. [ S.132, 139(1) ]
PCIT v. JSW Steel Ltd (2020)422 ITR 71 / 313 CTR 129/ 187 DTR 1/ 270 Taxman 201 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS. 68 : Cash credits – Share capital- Identity of the investors were not in doubt- Furnished PAN, copies of the income tax returns of the investors as well as copy of the bank accounts in which the share application money was deposited in order to prove genuineness of the transactions- Not required to prove source of the source- Deletion of addition by the Tribunal is held to be justified .
PCIT v. Ami Industries (India)P. Ltd. ( 2020) 424 ITR 219/116 taxmann.com 34 / 271 Taxman 75/188 DTR 133 / 315 CTR 753 (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.orgS. 245D : Settlement Commission – Settlement of cases – Jurisdiction- Black Money Act — Undisclosed income of Non-Resident Indians – Change in the Black Money Act only from assessment year 206-17 – Pending reassessment proceedings order of Settlement Commission for assessment years 2004 -05 to 2015-16 is held to be valid – Writ petition of the revenue is dismissed . [S. 148, 153A,245A, 245C,245D(4) , Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015, 2(9) ,3 , 4(3) , Art .226 ]
CIT v. ITSC (2020) 420 ITR 149/ 268 Taxman 234/ 187 DTR 49/ 313 CTR 283 (Guj) (HC),Editorial: Notice issued and accepted by respondents , in order to facilitate the Court in doing so, counsel shall file notes of their written submissions at least two weeks before the next date of listing , PCIT v. Income Tax Settlement Commission ( 2020) 275 Taxman 100 ( SC), Editorial: Notice issued and accepted by respondents , in order to facilitate the Court in doing so, counsel shall file notes of their written submissions at least two weeks before the next date of listing , PCIT v. Income Tax Settlement Commission ( 2020) 275 Taxman 100 ( SC)S.54F : Capital gains- Investment in a residential house -A part of amount deposited in Capital Gains Account Scheme was utilized for construction or purchase of a new asset within specified time of three years- Remaining unutilized amount is chargeable to tax in previous year in which period of three years expired- Entitle to withdraw the amount deposited in the capital gains Account subject to deduction of tax applicable .[ S.45, 54F(4) , Art .226 ]
P.N. Shetty. v ITO (2020) 268 Taxman 226/ 186 DTR 165 / 314 CTR 892 (Karn) (HC)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Method of accounting–Forward contracts-In terms of AS-11, both gains or loss on account of exchange rate fluctuations on reporting date are to be accounted for while computing income chargeable to tax-Revision is held to be valid. [S.145, AS-11]
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 178 ITD 51/178 ITD 151 /199 TTJ 716 (Mum.)(Trib.)S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- Depreciation-Block of assets–Scientific research–Capital expenditure–User of asset is not relevant–Once expenditure is incurred–Deduction is allowable.
Method of accounting–Valuation–Consistency method–Revision is held to be not justified–MAT credit–Revision is held to be valid. [S. 2(11), S.35(1)(iv), 35(2), 50, 145A]