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.271(1)( c ):Penalty—Concealment – Long term capital gains –Not specifying the charge- Deletion of penalty was held to be not justified – Order was set aside to decide the issue on merit [ S.45 , 54F ]
PCIT v. Prakash Chandra Sharma. (2018) 406 ITR 330/ 163 DTR 368 / 301 CTR 468 (All) (HC)
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal –Remand – Qualified remand was held to be not proper it has to be open remand , direction of the Tribunal was modified .
CIT v Tagros Chemicals (India) Ltd. (2018) 161 DTR 341 (Mad) (HC)
S. 234B : Interest – Advance tax -Capital gains- CBDT declined to waive the interest- Dismissing the petition the Court held that in law, equity would be subservient to; and, could not override; statute —Rejection of petition for waiver of interest is held to be justified [ S.119 ]
Arun Sunny v. CCIT (2018) 161 DTR 391 / 303 CTR 110(Ker)(HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery- The ITO (TDS) Bhagalpur cannot act arbitrarily and extend favour to the Mining Department and release their Bank account and decide to attach the Bank account of the petitioner and recover the tax liability from the Bank account of the petitioner in proceedings u/s 226(3)- Department was directed to refund the amount collected with in three months along with interest , failure to which the department was directed to pay the cost of Rs 1 lakhs which shall be paid from the pocket of the ITO. [ S.226(3) ]
Sainik Food (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2018) 406 ITR 596/ 164 DTR 265/ 302 CTR 49 (Pat) (HC)
S.226: Recovery – Stay was granted by directing to pay 5% of demand in dispute in two instalments as against 15% was directed to be paid earlier order
Antony Sunny v. JCIT (2018) 164 DTR 290 (Ker) (HC)
S.226:Recovery -Stay -Tax Recovery Officer could not grant stay of order of assessment and remedy lies only before AO or before First Appellate Authority AO had to consider case on merits and then take decision in matter and not mechanically go by guidelines issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes, as guidelines themselves provide for contingencies, which might vary from case to case. [ S.281B ]
S. Arputharaj v. Dy. CIT (2018) 162 DTR 25 / 300 CTR 558 (Mad) (HC)
S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery -Tribunal has directed to pay 55% of outstanding demand- On writ High Court directed the Tribunal to dispose the appeal expeditiously – Interim order of stay was declined as the appeal was slated for final arguments before the Appellate Tribunal .
Google India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (IT) (2018)252 Taxman 27 / 163 DTR 161 / 301 CTR 485 (Karn)(HC)
S.220:Collection and recovery – Stay –Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) -Direction of the CIT to enhancing to pay 50% of demand when first appeal is pending is held to be bad in law – Application for stay was pending before CIT(A)-CIT(A ) was directed to dispose the stay application with in four weeks and stay will continue for further period of two weeks.
Vodafone M-Pesa Ltd. v PCIT (2018) 164 DTR 257/ 256 Taxman 240 (Bom)(HC)
S.154: Rectification of mistake apparent on record -Levy of interest- Delay in filing of return-Waiver of interest – Petition was dismissed .[ S. 234A, 234B, 234C ]
Harish Kumar Gupta v. CCIT (2018) 404 ITR 590/163 DTR 260 / 301 CTR 354 (Uttarakhand) (HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment – Recorded reason was 31 st March 2010 where as notice u/s 148 was issued on 30 th March 2010 -Recording of reasons before issue of notice is mandatory hence Reassessment was held to be bad in law [ S.148 ]
CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 302 / 301 CTR 38 (Bom) (HC)