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. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence –Unregistered document-Though an unregistered agreement to sell does not entitle the parties to seek part performance u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it can be a basis for a suit for specific performance in view of S. 49 of the Registration Act. Consequently, even an unregistered agreement creates a right in favour of the buyer and constitutes a “transfer” of the old property u/s 2(47) for purposes of determining whether the purchase of the new property is within one year of the date of “transfer” of the old property [ S. 2(47) ,45 , Transfer of Property Act, 1882,S,53A, Registration Act ,1908,17(1)(a), 49 ]

Gautam Jhunjhunwala v. ITO( 2018) 173 ITD 93/170 DTR 153/ 195 TTJ 753 (Kol)(Trib),www.itatonline.org

S. 4 :Charge of income-tax – Accrual of income- Method of accounting -Gain arising on account of securitization of lease receivables and credited to the Profit & Loss Account is a taxable receipt in the year of securitisation. [ S.145 ]

L & T Finanace Limited v. DCIT ( 2018) 170 DTR 362 / 304 CTR 954/ 258 Taxman 282(Bom)(HC),www.itatonline.org

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Rental income whether assessable as property income or business income -No findings had been rendered by the Commissioner that the Assessing Officer had made an incorrect assessment of facts or incorrect application of law –Revision is held to be not valid .[ S.22, 28(i) ]

CIT v. V. Dhana Reddy And Co. (2018) 407 ITR 96 (T&AP) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Development agreement- Transfer and right to possession of developer does not arise prior to completion of construction and apportionment effected- Quantum of depreciation based on facts -Revision was held to be not valid . [ S. 2(47(v), 32, 45, Transfer of Property Act, 1953 S. 53A ]

PCIT v. Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. (2018) 407 ITR 137/ 257 Taxman 359/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 105/ 174 DTR 270 (Cal) (HC)

S. 153 : Assessment –Limitation – When seven issues were before Tribunal, Tribunal remanding of only five issues- Time Limit specified in S.153(2A) is applicable not S.153 (3)(ii)of the Act-Order is held to be not valid .[ S. 153(2A), 153(3)(ii) ]

Nokia India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 20 (Delhi) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment —Reassessment notice issued would remain in operation unless it is specifically withdrawn, quashed or gets time barred Subsequently- Subsequently Assessing Officer desired to withdraw of notice without issuing any formal withdrawal of notice — The law does not recognise two parallel assessments- In the absence of withdrawal of the first notice of reassessment, the proceedings would survive -Second notice of Reassessment is held to be not valid.[ S.148 ]

Marwadi Shares And Finance Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 407 ITR 49/ 168 DTR 296/ 304 CTR 899 (Guj) (HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed , due to low tax effect , Dy. CIT v. Marwadi Shares & Finance Ltd. (2023) 294 Taxman 600 (SC)

S.69: Unexplained Investments — Unexplained Cash — Construction of building –Withdrawal from bank and redeposit-Explanation was not satisfactory- Addition as unexplained investments is held to be justified .[ S.69A ]

Dinesh Kumar Jain (Late) (Through Legal Heir Ankit Jain) v. PCIT (2018) 407 ITR 65/169 DTR 371/ 304 CTR 877 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits -Receipt towards payment for Contract cannot be assessed as unexplained cash-simply because notices could not be served upon the sub-contractor, the transactions could not be held non-genuine .

PCIT v. Swastik Construction. (2018) 407 ITR 42 (Guj) (HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits – Share application money – Persons of insignificant means — Neither the creditworthiness of the creditors nor the genuineness of the transaction stood explained- Order of Tribunal up holding addition is confirmed .

B. R. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2018) 407 ITR 87/ ( 2019) 306 CTR 668 (Mad) (HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains – Profit on sale of property used for residence -Construction of residential house – Cost of land is also form cost of residential house –Not necessary that same money from sale of residential asset must be used .[S. 45 ]

C. Aryama Sundaram. v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1/ 258 Taxman 10/ 171 DTR 295 / 305 CTR 567 (Mad) (HC)