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. 199 : Deduction at source-Credit for tax deducted–property sold –rent passed on the respective owner–on such passing TDS also deducted by assessee–Held, credit of TDS deducted by original tenant can be claimed by the assessee.

CIT v. Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P) Ltd. (2019) 308 CTR 201 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 158BD : Block assessment-Undisclosed income of any other person – Separate satisfaction of the AO not necessary when Tribunal had recorded such satisfaction in the case of the searched person.[S. 158BC]

Vijayalakshmi, V. (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2019) 178 DTR 289/ 107 taxmann.com 450/265 Taxman 71 (Mag.)/( 2020)421 ITR 562/ 314 CTR 705 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 158BB : Block assessment–Computation-Undisclosed income– Estimation of profits can be made on the basis of both, material recovered in the search as well as the material available with the AO-Appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.

CIT v. Orma Marble Palace (P) Ltd. (2019) 177 DTR 350 / 308 CTR 584/ 110 Taxman .com 435 (Ker.)(HC)Editorial: SLP of the assessee is dismissed Orma Marble Palace (P) Ltd v CIT ( 2019) 267 Taxman 436 (SC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure–Addition made based on document seized at the premises of third party–Held, presumption u/s. 292C would apply in case of person from whose premise the document was seized–Held, addition burden on the AO in such case–Held, no proper enquiry by the AO – Held addition deleted. [S. 69, 292C]

CIT v. Cordial Company (2019) 308 CTR 159/176 DTR 185 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-The officer recording the reasons and the officer issuing notice has to be the same person-Any inherent defect therein cannot be cured -The fact that the assessee participated in the proceedings is irrelevant. [S. 147, 148(2), 292B]

Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah v. ACIT ( 2019 ) 110 taxmann.com 51 / (2020) 425 ITR 70/ 312 CTR 300/ 185 DTR 306(Guj)(HC), www.itatonline.orgEdiitorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ,ACIT v. Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah ( 2020 ) 275 Taxman 99 ( SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Failure to follow the procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd v. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and to pass a separate order to deal with the objections- Renders the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer ultra vires. [S. 148]

Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(Goa Bnech), www.itatonline.org

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years–Survey— Materials clearly showed that the sales declared were to be suspected—Re-opening was sustainable. [S. 133A, 148]

Sanjivani Non-Ferrous Trading (P) Ltd .v. ITO (2019) 308 CTR 532 / 177 DTR 276 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting–Cash method -Reimbursement not received from state government cannot be taxed on accrual basis. [S. 145]

CIT v. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd (2019) 179 DTR 161 / 104 CCH 608 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income – Return under 139(3) is necessary in order to carry forward losses under the head ‘business or profession’ or ‘capital gains’- Claim for carry forward and set off of busness loss is not allowed . . [S.45, 139(1), 139(3), 139(5)]

CIT v. Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. (2019) 177 DTR 411/ 308 CTR 841/ 267 Taxman 256 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income–revised return–amalgamation–post amalgamation revised return was required to be filed as the effective date was much prior to such date–Held, section 139(5) is not applicable to cases where revised returns are required to be filed pursuant to the approval of scheme of amalgamation by competent court–Held, Rule 12(3) requiring filing of return of income electronically not applicable to cases where the revised returns are require to be filed pursuant to the approval of scheme of amalgamation by competent court–Held, if electronic filing is not possible, Department to accept physical revised return. [S. 119, Companies Act, 2013 S. 391, and Rule 12(3) of the Rules]

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 308 CTR 777/308 CTR 777 / 178 DTR 113/ 265 Taxman 37 (Mad.)(HC) Dalmia Power Ltd. v. ACIT (2019)418 ITR 221 308 CTR 777 / 178 DTR 113 / 265 Taxman 37 (Mad.)(HC).Editorial: Decision of single judge is partly reversed by the Division Bench in appeal . ACIT v. Dalmia Power Ltd (2019) 418 ITR 242 (Mad) (HC) ACIT v Dalmia Cement Power Ltd ( 2019) 418 ITR 242 (Mad) (HC)