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.87A:Rebate of income -tax in case of certain individuals – New tax regime – Tax on income of individuals and Hindu undivided family – Rebate u/s 87A is substantive right which cannot be deprived by procedural changes such as changes in the utility software made by the department – The Court has directed the CBDT to extend the date of filing of return of income of AY. 2024-25 from 31 st December 2024 at least up to 15 th January 2025 by forthwith issuing a notification u/ s 119 of the Income -tax Act , 1961 so that the assesses can file a belated /revised return and claim rebate u/s 87 A in such return – The PIL is listed for hearing on 9 th January 2025 . [S.115BAC, 119,139(1), 139(4) , Art. 226 ]

The Chamber of Tax Consultants v. Director General of Income -Tax Systems & Ors ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org

The Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

S. 50 : Punishment for failure to furnish in return of income, any information about an asset (including financial interest in any entity)located outside India-Punishment for false statement in verification-Assets acquired prior to the coming into force of the Black Money Act-In the criminal petition, there was no challenge to the validity of S. 72(c)-Observations of the High Court in para 15 regarding application of Art. 20 of the Constitution of India are stayed till further order. [S.2(11), 2(12), 10, 52, 59, 72(C), IT Act, 131, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.200, 256, Art.20]

IT Department v. Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit (2024) 340 CTR 411 / 241 DTR 65 / 300 Taxman 587 (SC) Editorial : Dhanashree Ravindra Pandit (Smt.) v. IT Department (2024) 340 CTR 412 / 241 DTR 66(Karn)(HC), Certain observations is stayed.)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Protect the interest of the Revenue-Properties are mortgaged-Working capital-Order is passed directing the Revenue to lift the attachment on bank account to enable the assessee to avail the working capital facilities etc. from the banks. [Art. 226]

Rathna Akshaya Estates (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 340 CTR 159 / 238 DTR 32 (Mad)(HC) Saravana Selvarathnam Retail(P) Ltd v. PCIT 2024) 340 CTR 159 / 238 DTR 32 (Mad)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Reasonable cause-Paid tax with interest-Prosecution is quashed. [S. 278AA, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S 482]

Aditya Institute of Technology & Management v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2024) 340 CTR 208 / 240 DTR 447/ 163 Taxmann.com 738 (AP)(HC)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Order of Tribunal quashing the penalty is set aside and directed the Tribunal to decide on merits-Interpretation of statutes-Rule of literal construction. [S. 260A, 271(IB), Expln. 5A, 274]

PCIT v. Thakur Prasad Sao & Sons (P) LTD. (2024) 340 CTR 10 / 238 DTR 313 / 163 Taxmann.com 449 (Cal)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Cross objections becoming infructuous-Appeal of Revenue dismissed-Cross objection dismissed-No substantial question of law. [S. 253(4), Rule, 47(2), Form No.36A]

Essence Commodities (P) LTD. v ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 718 / 238 DTR 294 (MP)(HC) Editorial. Review petition is dismissed, Essence Commodities (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 705 / 238 DTR 281/ 163 Taxmann.com 473 (MP)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Review-Mistake apparent-No error apparent on face of record-Decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous and there was no reason to review/recall order of High Court. [S. 253(4), Rule, 47(2), Form No.36A, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1]

Essence Commodities (P) LTD. v ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 705 / 238 DTR 281/ 163 Taxmann.com 473 (MP)(HC) Editorial: Essence Commodities (P) LTD. v ACIT (2024) 340 CTR 718 / 238 DTR 294 (MP)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Multiple e-mail id-Opportunity of being heard-Primary and email id-Notices were sent email-Responded by the assessee-Opportunity of hearing was given-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 254(1) Art. 226]

Sham Basheer v. CIT (A) (2024) 340 CTR 742 / 240 DTR 219 (Ker)((HC) Editorial : Order of single judge is set aside, Sham Basheer v. CIT (A).(2024) 340 CTR 739 / 240 DTR 217 (Ker)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Multiple e-mail id-Opportunity of being heard-Notices were sent email-Responded by the assessee-Communications to the assessee were not sent at the addresses indicated in the appeal memorandum-Order of single judge dismissing the petition. is set aide-CIT(A) is directed to issue a fresh notice of hearing at correct email address and thereafter pass the orders in the appeal-Strictures-Department is advised to evolve a procedure whereby e-mail ids furnished by the assessees are regularly updated after confirmation with the assessee, so that at any given point in time, an assessee can only insist upon a maximum of three e-mail ids to which communications intended for him may be addressed. [S. 254(1) Art. 226]

Sham Basheer v. CIT (A).(2024) 340 CTR 739 / 240 DTR 217 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : Sham Basheer v. CIT (A) (2024) 340 CTR 742 / 240 DTR 219 (Ker)(HC) is set aside.

S. 226 : Collection and recovery-Modes of recovery-Stay-Pendency of appeal-Prima facie case-Pre-deposit of 20 percent of demand is not mandatory-Matter remanded to the AO for reconsideration.[S. 250, Art. 226]

Sushen Mohan Gupta v. PCIT (2024) 340 CTR 57 / 240 DTR 281 / 161 Taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)(HC)