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.32: Depreciation — Rate of depreciation —All equipment formed part of Life Saving Equipment —Denial of depreciation on computer is held to be not proper [ ITRules 1962, Appex. I, Part A Iii 3(Xia)(D).]

CIT v. Vasantha Subramanian Hospitals Pvt. Ltd (2018) 408 ITR 176 /258 Taxman 396/ 172 DTR 423/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 569(Mad) (HC)

S.28(i):Business income — Capital gains — Conversion of agricultural land into residential plots and sale of residential plots -Consideration over fair market value to be assessed as business income -No question of law .[ S.4, 45 , 260A ]

Mahaveer Yadav v. ITO (2018) 408 ITR 19 (Raj) (HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Exemption cannot be denied only on the ground that institution has earned surplus when the institution is solely for educational purposes .

J. B. Memorial Manas Academy Management Society. v. CIT (2018) 408 ITR 255/ 259 Taxman 537 (Uttarakhand) (HC)

Interpretation – Binding precedent -Appellate Tribunal- Assessing Officer is bound by decision of Tribunal- Pendency of an appeal would not amount to an order of stay .[ S.254(1) ]

LIC Employees Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 408 ITR 287/ 254 Taxman 119 (Mad) (HC)

Words and Phrases- Meanings of -“irregularity” and “illegality”.

ACIT v. Vijay Television Private Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 642/ 304 CTR 149/ 169 DTR 17 (Mad) (HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Cash credits- Reasonable cause in omitting rental income- Deletion of penalty is held to be justified .[ S.260A ]

CIT v. M. P. Purushothaman (2018) 407 ITR 689/ ( 2019) 175 DTR 221/ (2020) 314 CTR 733 (Mad) ( HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Allowability of interest -Assessing officer taking plausible view after proper enquiry — Order is not erroneous and cannot be revised. [ S.57(iii)]

Micro Inks Limited v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 681 (Guj) (HC)

S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Question of Law — Interpretation of document is question of law —Amount received by assessee under non-compete agreement constitute capital receipt . [ S.4 ]

V. C. Nannapaneni. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 505 / 305 CTR 625/ 171 DTR 337(T&AP) (HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal – Duties-Business income or capital gains- Investment in shares- The entire data of each transaction was before the Tribunal and nothing prevented it from looking into all the transactions and recording findings of fact-The Tribunal had failed to perform its duty and therefore, its order was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for decision afresh. [ S. 28( i), 45 ]

Jaya Chheda, Legal Heir of Late Hitesh S. Bhagat. v. ACIT (2018) 407 ITR 553 (Bom) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission -Finding of failure by assessee to make true disclosure of undisclosed income — The limited jurisdiction of judicial review while examining the correctness of the order of the Settlement Commission is a well settled principle- Rejection of application is held to be justified. [ S.245C ]

Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel. v. ITSC (2018) 405 ITR 270 (Guj) (HC)