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. 132 : Search and seizure–Reason to believe-Recording of satisfaction-Jewellery-Stock in trade-No cogent basis for arriving at conclusion that assessee was in possession of jewellery which represented his undisclosed income or property was discernible from satisfaction note, impugned search and seizure was to be quashed and all actions taken pursuant to such search and seizure were to be declared illegal-The respondents were ordered to pay costs quantified at Rs. 50,000. . [S. 132B, Art. 226]

Khem Chand Mukim v. PCIT (2020) 423 ITR 129/186 DTR 145 /113 taxmann.com 529 / 270 Taxman 252/ 313 CTR 14(Delhi)(HC).Editorial: Review petition of revenue is dismiised , Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT (Inv.) (2021) 277 Taxman 222/ 201 DTR 70/ 320 CTR 781 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Return-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship–Should be construed liberally-Order being cryptic-Delay is condoned. [S.119 (2)(b), 139. Art. 226, 227]

Vasudev AdigasFast Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT (2020) 186 DTR 89 / 314 CTR 852 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : Affirmed by division Bench , Vasudev Adigas Fast Food (P) Ltd; CBDT v. (2021) 437 ITR 67 / 282 Taxman 48/ 323 CTR 235 (Karn) (HC)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Banking company–Provision is not applicable to banking company. [S. 115JB(2), Companies Act, 1956, S 211(1)]

CIT v. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. (2020)422 ITR 116/ 186 DTR 193/ 313 CTR 69/ 270 Taxman 162 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 115JA : Book profit–Banking company–Provision is not applicable.

CIT v. Syndicate Bank (2020) 186 DTR 200 / 313 CTR 576 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 92CA : Reference to transfer pricing officer–Clause(i) of Section 92BA of the Act had been omitted by Finance Act, 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 and as such it came to be held that proceedings would lapse. [S. 92BA)]

PCIT v. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 186 DTR 50 / 313 CTR 485/ 271 Taxman 170(Karn.)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing–Arm’s length price–Granting adjustment of 10% on account of quality difference and deleting the addition made by TPO/AO by applying CUP to arrive at ALP in respect of Bisoprolol-Held to be valid. [S. 10B(1)(a)(ii), 260A]

PCIT v. Merck Ltd. (2020) 185 DTR 401 / 312 CTR 242/ 275 Taxman 181/ ( 2021 ) 434 ITR 596 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 80IC : Special category States–Profit of undertaking is eligible for deduction–Disallowance of purchase is held to be not valid. [S.80A(5)]

PCIT v. Laxmi Electronic (2020) 186 DTR 373 / 312 CTR 310 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

Constitution of India

362 : Corona Virus Lockdown Crisis – Extension of interim orders – Expiring before 30 -04 -2020 – Shall continue to operate till then – Interim orders which are not granted for limited duration are to operate till further orders shall remain unaffected by this order .[ Art . 226, 227 ]

Court on its own Motion ( Bom) (HC ) www.itat online .org.

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Back ward area-Not located in the industrial backward district which has been mentioned in the notification issued by the Central Govt-Not entitle to deduction. [S. 80HH(2), 80IA(2)(iv)(c)]

CIT v. Endeka Ceramics (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Johnson Mathey Ceramics India Ltd.) (2020) 423 ITR 117/ 186 DTR 369 / 313 CTR 238 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings–Writ of mandamus or otherwise to respondent to notify the Industrial Park of the petitioner under Rule 18C of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. [S. 80IB (10), Art. 226]

Softzone Tech Park Ltd. v. CBDT (2020) 421 ITR 398 / 185 DTR 92 / 312 CTR 289 (Karn.)(HC)