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-Bogus expenditure-Information received subsequent to scrutiny assessment-Survey report and statements of employees during course of survey–Reassessment is held to be valid. [S. 133A, 148]
Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading Pvt. Ltd. ITO (2019) 415 ITR 485 / 177 DTR 276(Delhi)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-No failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly-Reassessment on change of opinion is held to be not valid. [S. 148]
IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 415 ITR 459 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- No new tangible material-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148]
Pawan Sood. v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 350 (All.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-Change of opinion-Loss on account of sale of stores-No new material-Reassessment is not valid.[S. 144(1)(c), 148]
CIT v. Atul Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 1 (Guj) (HC)
S. 145A : Method of accounting–Interest-Compulsory acquisition of Land — Interest on enhanced compensation—Assessable in year of receipt under head Income from other sources. [S. 2(28A) 56(2)(viii), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.28]
Puneet Singh. v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 215/ 182 DTR 194 / 310 CTR 817 (P&H) (HC)
S. 145 : Method of accounting-Bank-Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India-Unreconciled outstanding amounts in inter branch accounts transferred to reserves through profit and loss account-Amount not assessable as Income [ S.28(i), Banking Regulation Act, 1949]
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. DCIT (2019) 415 ITR 193 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ( 2019) 413 ITR 319 (St) (SC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Income from undisclosed sources-Cash deposits not explained–Addition is held to be justified. [S. 69]
Parveen Kumar v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 241 (P&H) (HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Income from undisclosed sources- Purchase of property-Source of funds was not explained satisfactorily-Reduction of addition by Tribunal is held to be not justified.[S. 254(1)]
CIT v. N. Sheikh Ahmed Haji and Ors. (2019) 415 ITR 32 (Ker.) (HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment–Income from undisclosed sources–real estate business-Purchase of land–Alleged cash receipts-Price of the land was paid with other entries in the bank and there was nothing to show that a cash was received in excess of the agreement–Deletion of addition is held to be justified.[S. 69]
CIT v. Prestige City Developers P. Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 149 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of the revenue is dismissed CIT v. Prestige City Developers P. Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 36 (St)