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. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Enhancement of agricultural income -Failure to make proper enquiry by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings , revision was held to be valid – Tribunal was justified in admitting the additional evidence which was filed by the revenue [ S. 254(1) ]
Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 530 (HP) (HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –Gift- Conclusion drawn by Assessing Officer was consistent with information provided by donors therefore revision was held to be not valid .[ S. 68 ]
Sunil Kumar Rastogi v. CIT (2018) 406 ITR 306/252 Taxman 293 (All)(HC)
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court -Ex parte order can be recalled if sufficient cause shown [ S. 260A(7), 263, 68 , Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.XLI , r. 21. ]
Prayag Tendu Leaves Processing Co. v. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 120/ 252 Taxman 306 (Jharkand) (HC)
S. 260A : Appeal – High Court – Strictures passed against Dept’s Advocate for “most unreasonable attitude” of seeking to reargue settled concluded issues and not following the judicial discipline and law of precedents – Infrastructure facility – – Container freight station ( CFS) is eligible deduction as an infrastructure facility [ S.80IA ]
PCIT v. JWC Logistics Park Pvt. Ltd.( 2018) 404 ITR 310 (Bom)(HC) , www.itatonline.org
S. 254(2A) : Appellate Tribunal – Interim stay-Contempt- Strictures passed against the Department for confronting, showing resentment and displeasure to the Tribunal for granting interim stay against recovery of demand. Petition of revenue was dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited in Prime Minister’s Relief fund within 15 days of receipt of the copy of this order. [ S. 11 ]
ITO (E) v. Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association ( 2018) 193 TTJ 256// 163 DTR 113/ 66 ITR 14( SN) (Chd.)(Trib) , www.itatonline.org
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Review of order on the basis of principle laid down by Superior courts was held to be not permissible .
Gowthami Associates v. ITO (2018) 168 ITD 509 (Bang) (Trib.)
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Interest on borrowed capital- Rectification order passed by Tribunal subsequently allowing the interest was quashed [ S. 36(1)(iii) ]
PCIT v Nirma Ltd (2018) 252 Taxman 187 (Guj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed Nirma Ltd v. PCIT ( 2019) 265 Taxman 560 (SC)
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer—No illegality or perversity-Rectification is not maintainable [ S.12AA ]
CIT ( E) v. JK Education Samiti. (2018) 400 ITR 174 (P&H) (HC)