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. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Power to review decision — Review is only In case of patent error — Decision after consideration of facts by Tribunal and High Court — Decision cannot be reviewed .

D. N. Singh v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 507 (Pat) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Order of Tribunal recalling order and passing an entirely different order — Appeal is maintainable from such order .[ S.254(1), 254(2) ,254(4) ]

CIT v. U. S. Srivastava Memorial Educational Society. (2018) 405 ITR 546 (All) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Condonation of delay of 1371 days — Defective appeal filed by department dismissed for failure by department to rectify defects pointed out by Registrar —Reasons assigned for delay neither bona fide nor justified — Notice of motion dismissed.- Court also observed that , “Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. This approach of the Departmental officials is strongly deprecated.”

CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 483 (Bom) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Territorial jurisdiction of High Court — Assessment order and penalty order passed by Assessing Officer at New Delhi — First Appeal adjudicated by Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi and second appeal by Tribunal at New Delhi — Punjab and Haryana High Court has no Territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate appeal .[ S.80HHC,271(1)(c ) ]

CIT v. Nectar Lifescience Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 566 (P&H) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Limitation — Condonation of delay — Failure by Department to remove office objections despite extension -Reason of administrative difficulty — Delay cannot be condoned .

CIT v. Airlift (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 487 (Bom) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Tribunal has no power to recall order and pass an entirely different order . [ S.254(1) ]

CIT v. U. S. Srivastava Memorial Educational Society. (2018) 405 ITR 546 (All) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Notice is not mentioning of failure to disclose material facts -Reassessment is not valid [ S.148,151 ]

Anne Venkata Vishnu Vara Prasad v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491 /169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC) Yelamanchili Venkta Ramana v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491/ 169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years -Income forming subject matter of appeal —Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S.148 ,151 ]

Anne Venkata Vishnu Vara Prasad v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491/ 169 DTR 377 / 304 CTR 476 (T&AP) (HC) Yelamanchili Venkta Ramana v. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 491 /169 DTR 377/ 304 CTR 476(T&AP) (HC)

Constitution of India – Jurisdiction
Art.226:High Court — Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court — Company having Registered Office in Delhi —Notice to Non-Executive Chairman in Chennai — Chennai High Court has Jurisdiction to consider Writ petition by non-executive Chairman [ S.2(35) , 276B ,278AA]

Kalanithi Maran v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 356/ 256 Taxman 260/ 304 CTR 17 / 168 DTR 385 (Mad) (HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions – Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source -Non-Executive Chairman is not involved In Day-To-Day affairs of company — Managing Director admitting Liability and entering into negotiations with revenue — Prosecution of Non-Executive Chairman is held to be not valid . [ S.2(35) ,278AA]

Kalanithi Maran v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 356/ 256 Taxman 260/ 304 CTR 17 / 168 DTR 385(Mad) (HC)