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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty –Concealment – Notice u/s 274 issued without striking off the irrelevant words show non-application of mind by the AO. [ S.274 ]

BSM Developers Pvt.Ltd v. ITO(2019)179 DTR 193 / 73 ITR 69 / 200 TTJ 388 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 148: Reassessment- Notice- Order on appeal – If notice u/s 148 is beyond the time limit, the CIT(Appeals) cannot give direction u/s 150 to the AO to execute remedial action u/s 148 [ S. 147, .148 149(1) (b), 150 ]

Allahabad Bank Karamchari Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. v. ITO(2019)73 ITR 700 / 180 DTR 449/ 179 ITD 108 (Luck.)(Trib.)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – Where notice for reopening issued by AO prior to approval by CIT, the reassessment is bad in law [ S.147 ]

DCIT v. Bhaijee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 73 ITR 403 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 148: Reassessment – Time Limit for issue of notice – Reopening notice invalid once the time limit to reopen has expired.[S.147 , 149(1)(b), 150, 250 ]

Anshuman Ghosh v. ITO (2019)73 ITR 685 (Luck.)(Trib.)

S.143(3) : Assessment -Natural justice – Case remitted back as principles of natural justice were violates and opportunity of cross examination not given. [ S.131 ]

Ankit Metal and Power Ltd. v. JCIT (2019)73 ITR 374 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice – If the notice was not served upon a person authorised to receive it, the notice cannot be said to be validly served and consequently the assessment is void. [ S.282(1)]

Anidhi Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019)73 ITR 379 (Mum.) (Trib.)

S. 115JB : Book profit – Deduction of provision for card receivables written back not added in computation of Book Profits in the year of provision-Entitle to deduction of write back while computing he book profit.

Bobcards Ltd v. ACIT (2019) 73 ITR 1 (Mum) (Trib)

S. 92C: Transfer pricing – Comparables – Assessee is not barred in law from withdrawing from its list of comparables during assessment which were included by the assessee during benchmarking.

Approva Systems Private Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2019)73 ITR 219 / 180 DTR 438(Pune)(Trib.)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Credit entry in bank account of third party- Credit cannot be treated as undisclosed income in absence of evidences corroborating statement of parties .[ S.131 ]

Dy. CIT v. Sumeet Agarwal (2019) 73 ITR 148 (Jodh.)(Trib.) Dy.CIT v.. Avinash Modi (2019) 73 ITR 148 (Jodh.)(Trib.) Dy.CIT v. Kuldeep Modi (2019) 73 ITR 148 (Jodh.)(Trib.) Dy.CIT v. Jain Mining And Equipment (2019) 73 ITR 148 (Jodh.)(Trib.)

S. 55 : Capital gains – Capital receipt -Cost of improvement – Cost of acquisition – ‘Know-how under development’ does not created a right – If the know-how is not registered, no rights are conferred – Cost of acquisition of will be not ascertainable-As computation mechanism fails, capital gains will not be chargeable.[ S. 35, 41(3) ,45, 55(2)(a) ]

Bharat Serums and Vaccines Ltd. v. ACIT (2019)73 ITR 205/181 DTR 321 (Mum.)(Trib.)