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. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Gift- Conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors therefore revision was held to be not valid .[ S. 68 ]

Sunil Kumar Rastogi v. CIT (2018) 406 ITR 306/252 Taxman 293 (All)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Mere change of opinion revision was held to be not valid. [ S. 54B ]

Laxmi Narayan v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC) Shravan lal Meena L/H of Late Bhagwanta Meena v.ITO (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC) Mahadev Balaji v .ITO (2018) 402 ITR 117/( 2019) 306 CTR 361 (Raj) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Ex parte order can be recalled if sufficient cause shown [ S. 260A(7), 263, 68 , Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.XLI , r. 21. ]

Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 120/ 252 Taxman 306 (Jharkand) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Strictures passed against Dept’s Advocate for “most unreasonable attitude” of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues and not following the judicial discipline and law of precedents – Infrastructure facility – – Container freight station ( CFS) is eligible deduction as an infrastructure facility [ S.80IA ]

PCIT v. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd.( 2018) 404 ITR 310 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org

S.260A: Appeal -High Court- Mesne profit – Capital or revenue -Dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the department has not filed an appeal against the Judgement of special Bench was held to be not justified – High Court was directed to hear the appeal on merits [ S.4 ]

CIT v. Goodwill Theatres P. Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 566 (SC) Editorial : Order in CIT v. Goodwill Theatres Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 386 ITR 294 / 241 Taxman 352 (Bom.)(HC) was set aside

S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal – Interim stay-Contempt- Strictures passed against the Department for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. Petition of revenue was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief fund within 15 days of receipt of the copy of this order. [ S. 11 ]

ITO (E) v. Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association ( 2018) 193 TTJ 256// 163 DTR 113/ 66 ITR 14( SN) (Chd.)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Review of order on the basis of principle laid down by Superior courts was held to be not permissible .

Gowthami Associates v. ITO (2018) 168 ITD 509 (Bang) (Trib.)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Interest on borrowed capital- Rectification order passed by Tribunal subsequently allowing the interest was quashed [ S. 36(1)(iii) ]

PCIT v Nirma Ltd (2018) 252 Taxman 187 (Guj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed Nirma Ltd v. PCIT ( 2019) 265 Taxman 560 (SC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer—No illegality or perversity-Rectification is not maintainable [ S.12AA ]

CIT ( E) v. JK Education Samiti. (2018) 400 ITR 174 (P&H) (HC)

S. 254(2):Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Order in the case of sister concern is binding on the Tribunal unless set-aside or stayed. A rectification application on the ground that the orders in the sister concern’s case are not correct is not permissible as it amounts to a review [ S. 254(1)]

Procter & Gamble Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. ITAT(2018) 404 ITR 101/ 170 DTR 205 / 305 CTR 605 ( Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org