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. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Capital or revenue -Incentive received under Package Scheme of Incentives of Govt. of Maharashtra is capital receipt and not liable to tax.

ACIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2018) 64 ITR 21(SN) / 168 DTR 225 / 193 TTJ 521 (Nag)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Book profit – Exempt income- two views possible -Revision is held to be bad in law. [S.14A, 115JB, R. 8D]

Tata Sons Ltd v. ACIT (2019) 69 ITR 46 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting–Mercantile system-Mixed system of accounting-Asseseee cannot follow cash system selectively for certain receipts-Statutory provisions under Act would prevail over any observation/objection/remark of audit party of CAG.

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 785 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Project completion-Profit and loss account and Balance sheet is prepared on completion of project, provision for expenses in respect of ancillary work yet to be completed has to be taken in to consideration – When the payee is not known it is not possible to deduct tax at source on estimated expenditure – Not liable to deduct tax at source – No disallowance can be made. [S. 40(a)(ia)]

Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 217/ 175 ITD 671/ 178 DTR 5 / 199 TTJ 1003(Kol.) (Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel -Not an eligible assessee- Draft assessment order is invalid. [S. 92CA(3)]

ACIT v. Espn Star Sports Mauritius SNCET Companie (2019) 69 ITR 153 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Limited verification–The AO has to consider the claim of the assessee to make correct assessment- Matter remanded

Thakurraj Kumar v. DCIT (2019) 69 ITR 79 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Hindu undivided family -Agricultural land -Partition- Fixed deposits–Benami names of family members–Retraction of statement-No assessment is made in larger Hindu undivided family–Additions can be made in the hands of smaller HUF-Investments in fixed deposits to be considered as unexplained investments of smaller HUF in equal shares- Matter remanded. [S. 132(4), 171]

DCIT v. E. Ramesh Upadhyay, HUF (2019) 69 ITR 164 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 56 : Income from other sources-Agricultural land-Gift-Agricultural land is an immovable property-Stamp valuation-It is immaterial whether they fall under definition of capital asset or stock-in-trade- Chargeable as gifts. [S. 2(14), 50C, 56(2)(viib), 69]

ITO v. Trilok Chand Sain (2019) 174 ITD 729/ 199 TTJ 395 / 177 DTR 76 (Jaipur) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Business income–Investment in shares- Demarcated shares as investment in its balance sheet-Profit arising on sale of shares is chargeable to tax as capital gains and not as business income. [S. 28(i)]

Pratish Manilal Modi (HUF) v. ACIT (2019) 174 ITD 736 (Rajkot) (Trib.)

S. 45 : Capital gains-Fair market value of land–When exact valuation is not possible reasonably to fix market value of land by averaging value given by assessee and Assessing Officer.

Mohan Alagappan v. ITO (2019) 69 ITR 1 (Chennai) (Trib.)