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. 45 : Capital gains –Business income – Investment in shares -Intention of assessee at time of purchase of shares is paramount -Gain arising on sale of shares which was held as investment is assessable as capital gain and not as business income .[ S.28(i) ]

PCIT v. Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF)( 2017) 87 Taxmann.com 137 ( Guj) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ,PCIT v. Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi (HUF) (2018) 256 Taxman 66/ 256 Taxman 292 (SC)

S. 36(1)(viia) :Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts – Schedule bank -Aggregate average advance made by rural branches of scheduled bank would be computed by taking amount of advances made by each rural branch as outstanding at end of last day of each month comprised in previous year which had to be aggregated separately [ R.6ABA ]

PCIT v. Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (2018)408 ITR 393/ 256 Taxman 72 (Cal)(HC)

S. 12AA : Procedure for registration –Trust or institution-On receipt of registration Form 10 was filed claiming the benefit of S.11 of the Act- Single judge was justified in condoning the delay in submission of Form 10 and directing the AO to allow accumulation of income .[ S.11(2), Form 10 ] .

DIT (E) v. Chennai Port Trust. (2018) 256 Taxman 101 (Mad)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Corpus donation- Corpus donation on which it earned interest, in view of specific direction of donors that said interest would also form part of corpus and entitle to exemption .[S.11(1)(d), 62 ,63 ]

CIT ( E ) v. Mata Amrithanandamayi Math Amritapuri (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 26 ( Ker) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed ,CIT (E) v. Mata Amrithanandamayi Math Amritapuri. (2018) 256 Taxman 62 (SC)

Words and phrases- Meaning of word “The”

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 614 (Mad) (HC)

Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act, 1988.

S.24:Jurisdiction Of Officer — Notification No. S. O. 1620(E), dt. 18-5-2017 uploaded on Website of E-Gazette On 22-5-2017 — Department of publication Certifying date as 18-5-2017 — Notice and order of provisional attachment by Officer not authorised by Notification ,n 19-5-2017 is held to be not valid. [ S. 2(8) , 2(21), 18(1), 59 ]

Cascade Energy Pte Ltd. v. UOI (2018) 405 ITR 614 (Mad) (HC)

S. 271AAB:Peanlty -Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-No proceedings under S. 271(1)(c), initiated during course of assessment proceedings under S.143(3) of the Act. Admission by assessee in statement pursuant to search regarding undisclosed income and specifying manner in which such income derived — Initiation and imposition of penalty under S. 271AAB after completion of assessment proceedings is not vitiated by law .[ S.132, 271(1)(c ) ]

CIT v. Sandeep Chandak (2018) 405 ITR 648//93 taxmann.com 405/ / 169 DTR 449/ 304 CTR 657 (All) (HC) CIT v. Shakutala Chandak (2018) 405 ITR 648 /93 taxmann.com 405 / 169 DTR 449/ 304 CTR 657 (All) (HC) CIT v. Kamal Kishore Chandak (2018) 405 ITR 648/93 taxmann.com 405 / 169 DTR 449/ 304 CTR 657 (All) (HC) Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed , Sandeep Chandak v.CIT ( 2018) 405 ITR 11 ( St)// 255 Taxman 367 Editorial: Order in Sandeep Chandak v. ACIT (2017) 185 TTJ 265 /55 ITR 209 / 150 DTR 247 (Luck.)(Trib.) is reversed

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Power to review decision — Review is only In case of patent error — Decision after consideration of facts by Tribunal and High Court — Decision cannot be reviewed .

D. N. Singh v. CIT (2018) 405 ITR 507 (Pat) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Order of Tribunal recalling order and passing an entirely different order — Appeal is maintainable from such order .[ S.254(1), 254(2) ,254(4) ]

CIT v. U. S. Srivastava Memorial Educational Society. (2018) 405 ITR 546 (All) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Condonation of delay of 1371 days — Defective appeal filed by department dismissed for failure by department to rectify defects pointed out by Registrar —Reasons assigned for delay neither bona fide nor justified — Notice of motion dismissed.- Court also observed that , “Their attitude shows that they are not at all vigilant and interested in pursuing the cases filed by the Department involving a tax effect of crores of rupees. They expect the court to be lenient and liberal and pardon them every time. This approach of the Departmental officials is strongly deprecated.”

CIT (LTU) v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2018) 405 ITR 483 (Bom) (HC)