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. 147 : Reassessment- After the expiry of four years-Information supplied by investigation wing –Issue of notice to a wrong person-Even in a case where return is accepted without scrutiny, the AO cannot proceed mechanically and on erroneous information supplied to him by investigation wing. If AO acts merely upon information submitted by investigation wing and on total lack of application of mind, the reopening is invalid. [S.143(1), 148]

Akshar Builders and Development v. ACIT (2019) 411 ITR 602/ (2020) 196 DTR 212(Bom.)(HC), www.itatonline.org

S. 115JA : Book profit–Debenture Redemption Reserve– Ascertained liability–Deductible for computing book profits-Order of Assessing Officer as per the ratio of jurisdictional High Court-Revision is bad in law on merit and law. [S. 263]

Housing Development and Infrastructure Ltd v. PCIT (Mum.) (Trib.) (UR)

S. 2(ea) : Asset- Cash in hand-Excess of Rs 50000- Not maintained books of account–Includible as asset- Non -productive assets- Amendment is constitutionally valid – Revision is held to be not valid when the Assessing Officer has followed the ratio of jurisdictional Tribunal. [S.25, Art 14]

P. A. Jose v.UOI (2019) 410 ITR 55/ 306 CTR 568/ 174 DTR 152 (Ker)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment—Notice sent to old address-Duty of Assessing Officer to access changed Permanent Account Number database of assessee—Return filed showing new address- Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 144, 148, R. 127]

Veena Devi Karnani v. ITO (2019) 410 ITR 23 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 80M : Inter corporate dividends-Dividend declared in respect of earlier financial years distributed in assessment year in question —Entitled to deduction. [S. 263]

CIT v. Titan Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 175 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Infrastructure development-
Operation of Industrial Park approved by competent Authority—Entitle to deduction.

CIT v. R.R. Industries Ltd. (2019) 410 ITR 3 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure – Addition was made in prior year – Addition cannot be made relevant year.

Kohinoor Enterprises v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 153/ 175 DTR 43 / 307 CTR 154 (J&K) (HC)

S. 69 : Unexplained investments-Investment was not satisfactorily explained – Addition is held to be proper. [S. 69A]

V. R. Sreekumar v. CIT (2019) 410 ITR 1 (Ker) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Amount outstanding for six years—Addition cannot be made for the relevant accounting year.

Kohinoor Enterprises v. ACIT (2019) 410 ITR 153/ 175 DTR 43 / 307 CTR 154 (J&K) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits—loan from wife-Cash was deposited on the same day that cheque for that amount was issued- Addition is held to be justified.

Pawan Kumar Garg. v. CIT (2019) 410 ITR 131 (P&H) (HC)