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. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Rejection of books of account and estimate of net profit – Estimate was reduced by CIT(A) and Tribunal- Revision order to verify unsecured loans and creditors -Issue which was not subject matter of appeal can be revised by the Commissioner- Revision order is held to be justified .[ S.69A , 145, 263 ( c )]

Munni Rai. v. CIT (2019) 266 Taxman 355 (Patna) (HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- Power- Tribunal has the power to modify the stay order – Dismissal of stay application is held to be not justified on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to modify the stay order as the order is not passed u/s 254(1)- On facts only a part of interest amount is still remain unpaid rejection of application is held to be not justified . [ S.254(1), 254(2) ]

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2019) 266 Taxman 298 (Mad) (HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Notice – Notice issued in name of a dead person is not valid and liable to be quashed .[ S.147 , 159 ]

Bharti Harendra Modi. v. ITO (2019) 266 Taxman 314 (Guj) (HC)

S. 69A : Unexplained money – Cash found – Residential premises of father-in-law- Addition cannot be made in the assessment of the assessee. [ S. 132, 132(4A, 153C, 292C ]

Dharmraj Prasad Bibhuti (2019) 266 Taxman 281/ 311 CTR 969 / ( 2020) 186 DTR 66 /421 ITR 497 (Patna) (HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Capital or revenue – Lease premises – Interior decoration – Capital expenditure – Depreciation is allowable. [ S.32 ]

CIT v. ETA Travel Agency (P.) Ltd. (2019) 266 Taxman 303 (Mad) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution- charitable trust – Entitle to exemption .[ S.2(15) ,10(23C)(iv) , 12AA ]

CIT ( E ) v. GS1 India (Formerly Ean India) (2019) 266 Taxman 279 ( Delhi) (HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue ; CIT ( E) v. GS1 India (Formerly Ean India) (2019) 266 Taxman 278 (SC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions–Sanction-Chief Commissioner –Wilful attempt to evade tax–Non-technical offence–False statement in verification- Reduction of penalty by CIT (A)-Prosecution cannot proceed–Compounding of offences-Application for compounding to be considered by committee specified in circular–DGIT has no jurisdiction to reject the application. [S. 119, 120, 276C(1), 273B, 277, 279(IA), 279(2), Art.141]

K. M. Mammen v. DIT (2019) 418 ITR 157/( 2020) 186 DTR 78/(2020) 314 CTR 467 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty–Concealment–Notice–Not specifying the charge – Defects could be rectified–Notice is not invalid–Writ to quash the notice is held to be not maintainable. [S. 292B, Art.226]

Amtex Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 418 ITR 99/ ( 2020) 186 DTR 20 / 313 CTR 216(Mad.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Procedure–It is statutorily imperative to give a personal hearing while disposing of an appeal-Ex-parte order passed by CIT(A) confirming the addition is set aside. [Art. 226]

Gemini Film Circuit v. CIT (2019) 266 Taxman 216/ (2020) 186 DTR 366/ 313 CTR 126 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission–Bogus share capital and share premium-Failure to make full and true disclosure with regard to undisclosed income by way of bogus share capital and share premium and also manner of earning such income- Settlement Commission is justified in rejecting settlement application on such ground even at stage of passing of final order under 245D(4)-Limitation-Proceedings were pending from 26-2-2015 till 4-8-2016, said period was to be excluded while calculating limitation period for issuing notice under section 143(3) read with section 153A and after excluding above period, notice issued under said section was not time barred. [S. 132, 153A, 153B, 245C, 245D(4), 245HA]

Rohit Kumar Gupta v. PCIT (2019) 266 Taxman 249 / 310 CTR 393 / 181 DTR 185(Delhi) (HC) RPG Consultants (P) Ltd v. PCIT (2019) 266 Taxman 249/ 310 CTR 393 / 181 DTR 185 (Delhi) (HC)