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. 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

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Additional ground – Agent of State- Not liable to be assessed – Additional ground was admitted and matter was seta side to the AO to decide accordance with law .[ S. 10(23AAA), 10(23C)(iv), Art . 289(1) ]

Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board v. ITO (2018 ) 168 ITD 15 (Mum) (Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers—No satisfactory explanation was furnished hence delay of 613 days in filing the appeal was not condoned [ S. 253(1) , Limitation Act, 1963, S.5 ]

Shakuntla Thukral (Smt.) v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 85 (P&H) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties- Failure to consider entire material on record by the Tribunal, order was set aside [S. 253 ]

CIT v. Essa Ismail Sait (Late) (2018) 400 ITR 134 (Ker) (HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Cross objection- Delay of 138 days- Delay due to oversight was held to be not sufficient cause -Delay was not condoned[ S. 253 ]

ACIT v. Progressive Constructions Ltd ( 2018) 161 DTR 289 /63 ITR 516/191 TTJ 549( SB) ( Hyd) (Trib)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal — Delay of 93 days in filing appeal was condoned [ S. 263 ]

Vinod Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Shyam Sundar Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Ramnaresh Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib) Pawan Kumar Agarwal v. CIT (2018) 61 ITR 598 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal —Addition was made in original assessment – Reassessment was made making further additions — Original assessment order does not merge with reassessment order — Assessee not challenging additions made in reassessment order — Appeal was held to be not maintainable [ S.143(3),147 ]

Rajdhani Systems And Estates P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 61 ITR 664 (Ctk ) (Trib)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Contractor -Turn over -Assessment based on turnover admitted by assesse, the Tribunal has no power to reduce the turnover.

PCIT v. Silpa Project And Infrastructures (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2018) 402 ITR 512 (Ker)( HC)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal- Limitation -Delay of 1400 days- Dismissing the cross objections which was filed four years later was held to be justified [ S. 14A , 254(1) ]

Jubilant Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2018) 400 ITR 527/ 163 DTR 1 / 253 Taxman 284 (Delhi) (HC) Jubilant Capital Pvt.Ltd v. Dy .CIT ( (2018) 400 ITR 527 / 163 DTR 1(Delhi)