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
Interpretation of taxing statutes – Precedent – Supreme Court -Pronouncement of Supreme Court is binding on High Court though not ratio decidendi of judgment .
Peerless General Finance and investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT( 2019) 416 ITR 1/ 265 Taxman 413/ 309 CTR 321/180 DTR 97(SC), www.itatonline.org
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment-Notice not specifying the charge whether concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Failing to strike inapplicable words- Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274]
Rajesh Enterprises v. ITO (2019) 74 ITR 12 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Recording the satisfaction as regards concealment of particulars of income–Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income–Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 274]
Harvinder Singh v. ITO (2019) 200 TTJ 137 / 179 DTR 225 (TM)(Amritsar)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Interests of fixed deposits -If an amount is not chargeable to tax just because the payer has deducted the tax at source, the said amount cannot be brought to tax [S. 4].
Administrator of Estate of Lt. Edulji Framroze Dinshaw v. CIT (2019) 177 ITD 341 / 177 DTR 48 / 199 TTJ 885 (Mum.)(Trib.)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue–Purchase of a land prior to date of transfer of agricultural land– Revision is held to be justified. [S. 45, 54B]
Paras Chinubhai Jani v. PCIT (2019) 177 ITD 591 (Ahd.)(Trib.)
S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal–Third member–Powers- Third member has to pass an order agreeing with the one of the views. [S. 254(1), 255(4)]
Harvinder Singh v. ITO (2019) 200 TTJ 137 / 179 DTR 225 (TM) (Amritsar)(Trib.)
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Duties-Additional evidence– Supporting the order of AO certain agreements which were produced by the assessee before the AO was produced by the revenue–Admission of additional evidence is held to be justified. [ITAT R. 29]
Radhika Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Powers -New source of income–Purchase of shares at Rs.4 per share when the market price was Rs.140 per share–AO made addition of Rs. 136 per share u/s 69/69B of the Act–CIT (A) confirmed the addition u/s. 56(2)(vii)(c) of the Act–CIT(A) has not discovered a new source of income-Order of CIT(A) is affirmed. [S. 56(2)(vii)(c), 69, 69B, 246A]
Radhika Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 / 180 DTR 329 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org Dr. Prannoy Roy v. DCIT (2019) 200 TTJ 665 / 73 ITR 239 (Delhi)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner(Appeals)–Payment of admitted tax- Subsequently required amount of tax is paid- Appeal shall be admitted on making payment of tax and taken up for hearing on merits. [S. 246A, 249(4)(a)]
Annapoorneshwari Investment v. DCIT 177 ITD 717 (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay–Order passed after six years from expiry of financial year 2005-06 relevant to impugned assessment year-Held to be barred by limitation. [S.195(2), 201(1), 201(IA)]
Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 177 ITD 434 (Mum.)(Trib.)