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. 143(2) : Assessment – Notice –Failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee has participated in the proceedings -Deeming fiction does not operate to save complete absence of notice [ S.292BB ]
CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal( 2019) 417 ITR 325/ 266 Taxman 171 / 310 CTR 8/ 180 DTR 313 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal ( 2019) 108 taxmann.com 182 (MP )(HC ) is affirmed .
S. 92CA: Reference to transfer pricing officer – CBDT’s Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003 makes it mandatory for the AO to make a reference to the TPO- The failure to make reference to the TPO renders the Transfer Pricing Adjustments made therein are bad in law though the assessment order is good- The matter should be restored to the file of the AO so that appropriate reference could be made to the TPO.[ S. 92C, 119 ]
PCIT v. S. G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd( 2019)266 Taxman 451/ 108 taxmann.com 213 / 310 CTR 1/ 181 DTR 17 (SC),www.itatonline.org Editorial: Arising from the order PCIT v. S. G. Asia Holding (I) Pvt. Ltd ( 2019) 102 taxmann.com 306 ( Bom) (HC)
S. 68 : Cash credits –Share capital premium- The test of human probabilities cannot be applied to business transactions- The AO cannot reach this conclusion without further investigation and bringing material on record -Reopening is held to be bad in law [ S.147, 148 ]. .
Janani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT( 2019 ) 74 ITR 373 /( 2020) 203 TTJ 59 (Bang)(Trib),/ Carmel Asia Holdings (P) Ltd v ACIT 2019) 74 ITR 373/ (2020) 203 TTJ 59 (Bang.)(Trib.), www.itatonline.org
S. 56 : Income from other sources –HUF –Relative – Amounts received by a member from the ‘HUF’ cannot be said to be income of the member exigible to taxation- Revision is held to be not valid [ S.56(2) (vii), 263 ].
Pankil Garg v. PCIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 305 (Chand)(Trib),www.itatonline.org
S. 50C : Capital gains-Full value of consideration- stamp valuation- Though the 3rd Proviso to S. 50C, which provides a safe harbour of 5%, applies w.e.f. 01.04.2019, it must be interpreted to apply since the insertion of s. 50C (01.04.2003) because it is curative and removes an incongruity and avoids undue hardship to assessees. [ S. 43CA, 45 ]
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT ( 2019) 201 TTJ 831/( 2020) 181 ITD 185 /188 DTR 108 (Kol)(Trib), www.itatonline.org
S. 45 : Capital gains – Penny stocks- Bogus capital gains- 282 times gain in 12 months- The meticulous paper work of routing the transaction through banking channel is futile because the results are altogether beyond human probabilities. [ S.10(38) ]
Sanat Kumar v. ACIT (Delhi)(Trib), www.itatonline.org
S. 45 :Capital gains- -Penny stocks- Long term capital gains from penny stocks cannot be treated as bogus if the documentation is in order and no fault is found by the AO- Addition is deleted. [ S.38, 111A ]
Chandra Prakash Jhunjhunwala v. DCIT ( 2019) 201 TTJ 831 /( 2020) 181 ITD 185/ 188 DTR 108(Kol)(Trib), www.itatonline.org
S. 37(1): Business expenditure- Capital or revenue – Expenditure on scholarship – Held to be revenue expenditure.
Harish Narinder Salve v. ACIT ( 2019) 181 DTR 121/ 74 TR 21 (SN)/178 ITD 800 Delhi)(Trib),www.itatonline.org
Interpretation of taxing statutes –Retrospectivity-Power of Courts – Intention of legislature to be seen . [ S.43(5) , 73 ]
Snowtex Investment Ltd v. PCIT (SC)( 2019) 414 ITR 227/265 Taxman 3 / 308 CTR 665 / 178 DTR 89 (SC),www.itatonline.org