S.147: Reassessment- After the expiry of four years- Bogus capital gains- Penny stocks- Information was received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department- The assessee disclosed the primary facts to the AO & also explained the queries put by the AO- It cannot be said that the assessee did not disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment- Reassessment is held to be not valid [ S. 45 , 148 ]
Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT ( 2020) 426 ITR 228 / 272 Taxman 255 / 194 DTR 57/ 317 CTR 9/ 272 Taxman 255(Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
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 –With in four years- Change of opinion -Book profit- The reasons in support of the notice is the very issue in respect of which the AO had raised a query during the assessment proceedings-The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order amounts to the AO accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion- Reassessment on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction [ S.115JB , 148, Companies Act , 1956 , S.211(6) ]
ACIT v. Marico Ltd ( 2020) 272 Taxman 179 / 192 DTR 109/ 315 CTR 159 (SC) www.itatonline .org.Editorial : Marico Ltd v ACIT 2019) 311 CTR 865 / 183 DTR 353/ 111 taxmann.com 253 (Bom.) (HC) (Bom(HC ) is affirmed ( WP No 1917 of 2019 21-08 -2019 )Constitution of India , 1949 . Art.141 :Covid -19 – Extension of limitation period due to Covid-19 Lock down- Service of all notices, summons and exchange of pleadings may be effected by e-mail, FAX, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc in addition to service of the same document by e-mail simultaneously on the same date- The Reserve Bank of India may consider whether the validity period of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be extended or not [ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S.23(4),29A, Banking Regulation Act,1949, S.35A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ,S.12A Constitution of India, 1949 , Art 141 , Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,S.46 Limitation Act 1908 , S.5 ]
In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation v .Ors ( 2020) 9 SCC 468; MANU/SC/ 0654/ 2020 (SC) www.itatonline.orgConstitution of India , 1949
Art. 217(2) : Judicial office- Elevation to High Court – Family Court has all trappings of Court – Therefore is a court – However Judges of Family Court do not hold, Judicial Office- Not eligible to be considered for elevation as High Court Judges . [ Art , 233(2) 236 , Family Courts Act , 1984 , S 3 ]
S.260A :Appeal -High Court – Substantial question of law- High Court in second appeal cannot reverse the concurrent finding of Courts below ,without framing a substantial question of law . [ Civil procedure code 1908 , S.100 ]
S.N.D.P Sakhayagam v .Kerala Atmavidya Sangam and ors ( 2017) 8 SCC 835S.260A :Appeal -High Court – Substantial question of law- High court is directed to consider the substantial question of law at the time of final hearing of appeal in respect of questions which was not pressed at the time of admission of appeal. [ S. 10A, 260A (4) , 261 ]
Convergys India Services (P.) Ltd. v CIT (2014) 221 Taxman 114 / 269 CTR 127 ( SC)S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties -Penalty -Concealment of income – An appellate authority has to decide all the issues , it cannot decide only one issue and decline to go other issues raised before him- Deletion of penalty is held to be valid . [ S. 271(1) (c ) , Indian Income -tax Act ,1922, S .28(i) ( c) ]
CIT v Ramdas Pharmacy (1970) 77 ITR 276 (Mad ) (HC)9.S.69C : Unexplained expenditure – Bogus purchases – Failure to produce lorry receipts and movement of goods – Mere reliance by the AO on information obtained from the Sales Tax department or the statements of two persons made before the Sales Tax Department would not be sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus – Burden is on revenue to prove that the transaction is not genuine- Deletion of addition is held to be justified . [S.133(6) ]
PCIT v. Vaman International Pvt. Ltd (2020)422 ITR 520 /118 taxmann.com 406 /(2021 ) 202 DTR 209/ 321 CTR 671 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.orgS. 143(3) : Assessment – Liability to tax – Set-aside – Attachment of property
Ashwin S. Mehata & Anrs. v. Custodian & Ors. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 795 (SC)Maharashtra Co -Operative Society Act ,1960
S.41 : Exemption from compulsory registration of Instruments relating to shares and debentures of Society – Gift of shares of Co-op Hsg. Society- Gift of immoveable property -Unregistered declaration of gift of Shares held by a Member of Co-operative Hsg. Society – Property thereunder cannot be said to be validly transferred even though accepted by donee.[ Indian Registration Act ,1908, S.17 , Transfer of property Act , 1882 , S. 53, 123 ]
Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani v. Solestrap Industries Ltd. (2006) 3 AIR Bom R 281/ , AIR 2006 (NOC) 780 (Bom)/ 2006 (1) MHLJ 21 (Bom) (HC)