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. 245D : Settlement commission-where Commission had taken note of each of objections raised by Commissioner in his report and after testing same against disclosure of income made by assessee in his application, proceeded to dispose of matter by impugned order, there being no perversity in order passed by Commission, petition was to be dismissed. [S.245C, 245D(4)]

ACIT v. ITSC/UOI (2019) 419 ITR 419/ 261 Taxman 72/ 179 DTR 152 / 309 CTR 307 (Patna)(HC) /Tirupati Homes Ltd v.ITSC ((2019)419 ITR 410/ 261 Taxman 72 / 179 DTR 152 / 309 CTR 307 (Patna)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases–Clubbing of shareholding held by different shareholders to make collective shareholding of 20 per cent is not permissible under law–Rejection of application is held to be justified. [ S. 132 ]

Bhatia Colonizers (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2019) 417 ITR 143/ 261 Taxman 115/ 309 CTR 240 / 179 DTR 249(Raj.)(HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Rejection of stay application by a single line order stating petition rejected – Order set aside and directed the tax authorities to pass speaking order. [S. 220]

Archit Khemka v. PCIT (2019) 261 Taxman 108 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities–Merger-Order of Commissioner (Appeals) stood merged with order of Tribunal, and further with subsequent orders of High Court and Supreme Court; hence, there did not remain or survive any jurisdiction with Commissioner to seek any rectification or correction in his earlier order–Rectification order was quashed. [S.194A, 201(1), 201(IA), 250]

Canara Bank v. CIT (A) (2019) 261 Taxman 204 / 180 DTR 106/ 310 CTR 126(All.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Notice against dead person-Merely because in response to notice issued against Jayantilal Harilal Patel petitioner had informed Assessing Officer about death of assessee and asked him to drop proceedings- it could not, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as petitioner having participated in proceedings and, therefore, provisions of section 292B would not be attracted –Notice is held to be invalid. [S. 2(7) / 2(29), 159, 147 292B]

Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. ITO (2019) 413 ITR 276/ 261 Taxman 137 / 177 DTR 451/ 308 CTR 737 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Two set of reasons–Gist of reasons same–Sanction was obtained–Mere fact that tax authorities conveyed reason twice would not be fatal -Reassessment is held to be valid. [S.143(1), 148]

Himmatbhai M. Viradiya v. ITO (2019) 261 Taxman 132/ 308 CTR 771 / 174 DTR 251 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Notice–Non disposal of objection by observing that it was not feasible to pass separate speaking order in respect of objections raised-It is mandatory to decide objections one way or other-Not curable defects-Non-adjudication of objections after receiving same, would render consequential actions and orders illegal. [S. 144, 148]

Raninder Singh v. CIT (2019) 261 Taxman 214 (P&H)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits–Gift from non relative-Suspicion – Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S.68, 143(1), 148]

PCIT v. Rajesh D. Nandu (HUF) (2019) 261 Taxman 110 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Acceptance of loans and deposits-Otherwise than by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft–reassessment proceedings was merely based on change of opinion of Assessing Officer, impugned order passed by Tribunal up held. [S. 148, 269SS]

CIT v. Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 83 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 115JB : Book profit-While computing book profit, provision made for payment of wealth tax could not be included in it as section 115JB only refers to income-tax paid or payable or provisions made therefor –No question of law. [S. 260A]

CIT-LTU v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 261 Taxman 283 / (2020)423 ITR 236 (Bom.)(HC)