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. 226 : Collection and recovery-Stay–Pendency of appeal before CIT (A)- Similar addition was decided in favour of other assessee by the CIT(A) -AO cannot direct the Assessee to deposit 20 percent of tax demanded. [S. 246A]
ARCIL Retail Loan Portfolio001-D-Trust v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 508 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay-Pendency of appeal before CIT( A) – AO cannot proceed mechanically in calling upon assessee to remit 20 per cent of demand without examining appropriateness of facts and circumstances of case- Order was set aside. [S. 132, 153A, 220(6)]
Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 422 //(2020)421 ITR 405 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery–Stay–Appeal pending before CIT(A)-Assessee has given liberty to approach the AO to stay the demand. [S. 220(3), 220(6), 246A]
Veisa Technologies. v. ACIT (2019) 263 Taxman 600// (2020)422 ITR 536 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Relief for income-tax-Arrears or advance of salary–Failure to claim in return–Rectification order passed by the AO is held to be without jurisdiction. [S.89(1)]
Gurmeet Singh Vilkhu v. PCIT (2019) 263 Taxman 636/ 307 CTR 799/ 176 DTR 105 (MP)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Sanction order indicated non-application of mind to reasons recorded for reopening, therefore, reopening notice was bad in law and quashed. [S.147, 148]
My Car (Pune) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 626/ 179 DTR 236 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- On the day of furnishing the recorded reasons–Reassessment order is passed -Order passed in hasty manner–Order is seta side. [S. 148]
Kanchan Agarwal (Mrs.) v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 682 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Share application money-Huge premium-Genuineness of transaction or creditworthiness of individual providing money were apparently not established–Issue of reassessment notice is held to be justified.[S. 68, 148]
Max Ventures Investments Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 415 ITR 395 / 263 Taxman 401/ ( 2019) 179 CTR 228/ 309 CTR 372 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years-Book profit-Subsidy received by assessee from Government was directly credited to capital reserve account-Sufficient disclosure of facts– Reassessment is held to be bad in law.[S. 115JB, 148]
Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 105 taxmann.com 181 / 263 Taxman 367 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, Dy. CIT v. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (SC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Penny stock – Shares-No failure to disclose all material facts- Merely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing without conducting any independent enquiries. [S. 69A, 148]
South Yarra Holdings v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 594 (Bom.)(HC)