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–Non-resident-Limitation- Offshore trust–Amendment to S. 149, by Finance Act, 2012, which extended limitation for initiation of reassessment proceedings to sixteen years, could not be resorted for reopening concluded proceedings in respect of which limitation had already expired before amendment became effective – Notice issued in 2015 for the assessment year 1998-99 was quashed. [S. 148, 149]

Brahm Datt v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 380/ 173 DTR 1/ 306 CTR 114 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(1D) : Assessment–Notice u/s 143(2) is issued for, processing of return -Processing the return for issue of refund is not required -Writ to process the return and issue of refund is dismissed. [S. 143(1),143(2), 143(3), 241 , 241A ]

Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 417 /173 DTR 34 / 306 CTR 12/( 2020) 421 ITR 193 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation – Approval under section 80G(5)(vi) could not be denied merely because donations made by assessee-trust were of insignificant amount. [S. 80G(5)(vi)]

CIT v. Mata Padmawati Shyamdaya Charitable Trust (2019) 260 Taxman 266 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Cash deposited in bank- creditors did not respond – Cross examination was not requested – Addition is held to be justified.

Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 326/ 178 DTR 44/ 309 CTR 92/(2020) 423 ITR 489 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : Suresh Kumar T. Jain v. ITO ( 2011) 128 ITD 74 (Bang ) (Trib) is affirmed.

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence – Exemption is available though the construction of new property was not completed with in period of three years [ S.45 ]

PCIT v. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) 260 Taxman 317 / 177 DTR 158/ 308 CTR 662(Karn.)(HC)

S. 45 (4) : Capital gains – Firm -Retirement of partners-On contribution the individual property to firm, it is the property of the firm – Tribunal is justified in assessing the capital gains in the assessment of the firm.[ S.45 ]

S.K. Ravikumar v. ITO (2019) 260 Taxman 288/ 413 ITR 456/ 180 DTR 20/ 310 CTR 212 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Business promotion-Failure to produce supporting evidence–Disallowance of 50% of expenses are held to be justified.

Sandeep Marwah v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 231 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure -Finance lease-Operating lease – Accounting Standard 19 – Matter remanded to Appellate Tribunal [S. 254(1)]

Tristar Container Services Asia (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 260 Taxman 277 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 12A : Registration –Trust or institution- Anaesthesia speciality – Education programme and research work in larger perspective were going to benefit public at large – Entitled for registration [ S.2(15) ]

CIT(E) v. Anesthesia Society (2019) 260 Taxman 375/ 183 DTR 221 (Raj)(HC)

S. 10(12) : Accumulated balance–Recognised provident fund – Accumulated balance lying in provident fund of assessee upto retirement is eligible for exemption.

PCIT v. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) 260 Taxman 317/177 DTR 158/ 308 CTR 662 (Karn.)(HC)