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. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Interest-Short term deposits-Funds placed with banks during period of construction of project-Interest earned is capital in nature. [S. 28(i), 145, 260A]

PCIT v. Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 202 / (2024) 337 CTR 615(Gauhati)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Capital or revenue-Sales tax exemption-Scheme requiring recipient of benefit to utilise substantial portion of subsidy for capital purposes-Capital receipt. [S. 28(i)]

CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 808 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 237 (Guj)(HC), affirmed. CIT v. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd (2017) 10 ITR-OL 275 (Guj)(HC), affirmed.

S. 24 : Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Benami Property-Provisional Attachment-Show cause notice-Writ petition against show cause notice is dismissed-Directed to file the reply-Time to file reply is extended by a period of two weeks. [S. 24(1), Art. 226]

Aachman Marketing (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2023] 294 Taxman 737 (Cal)(HC)

S. 24 : Notice and attachment of property involved in benami transaction–Benami Property-Provisional Attachment-Sufficient material-The Assessee was advised to approach the adjudicating officer to explain why the provisional attachment order is bad in law. [S. 24(1), Art. 226]

M. Kumudhavalli v. Initiating Officer Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (2023) 294 Taxman 633 /(2024) 460 ITR 43(Mad)(HC)

S. 24(1) : Benami transactions-Transactions prior to amendment in 2016-Notices, orders for provisional attachment and adjudicating orders are set aside-Oder of High Court affirmed. [S. 4(a)(i) 26(3) Art. 136]

ACIT (Initiating Officer) v. Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2023)454 ITR 580/ 294 Taxman 262 (SC) Editorial : Neopride Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Adjudicating Authority (2023) 454 ITR 571 / 152 taxmann.com 343 (Telengana)(HC), affirmed.

S. 2(9) : Benami Transactions-Prohibition of benami transactions-Prohibition of right to recover property held benami-Co-owner-25 percent share in suit property. [S. 3.(2), The Civil Procedure Code 1908, Order VII Rule 11 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 340]

Parmod Kumar Jain v. Satish Jain (2023) 294 Taxman 673 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 2(9) : Benami transaction-Amendment of Act in 2016 Provisions are substantive-Not applicable with retrospective effect-Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law, but no such right exists in procedural law-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Rule against retrospectivity-Transactions prior to amendment in 2016-Notices, orders for provisional attachment and adjudicating orders are set aside-Oder of High Court affirmed. [S. 2(9)(A) (2(9)(C), 4(a)(i), 24(3) 26(3), Art. Art.20 136]

ACIT v. Nexus Feeds Ltd. (2023) 453 ITR 459/ 294 Taxman 438 (SC) Editorial: Nexus Feeds Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 261 / 137 taxmann.com 261 (Telengana)(HC)

Interpretation of Taxing statute-Binding precedent-Decision rendered following earlier decision – Subsequent overruling of earlier decision does not revive judgment passed earlier.

CIT (IT) v. Gracemac Corporation (2023) 456 ITR 135 / 294 Taxman 708(SC)

Income Declaration Scheme, 2016-Finnace Act, 2016 (2016) 384 ITR 87 (St)
S. 184 : Charge of tax and surcharge-Advance tax-Payment of tax-Credit for advance tax-Credit for advance tax must be given-Directed the respondents to issue certificate as required by Rule 4(5)-Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue.. [S. 183, 185 ITACT, S.199, 219 Art. 226]

PCIT v. Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali (2023) 294 Taxman 608 (SC) Editorial : Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali v. PCIT (2022) 443 ITR 148/ 286 Taxman 580 (Bom)(HC)

S. 279 : Offences and prosecutions-Sanction-Chief Commissioner-Commissioner-Tax deduction at source-Delay in depositing the amount-No Limitation period for filing of Compounding application-The application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay in filing the application-Central Board of Direct Taxes cannot issue guidelines overriding the statutory provisions.[S. 119, 276B, 278B, 279(2), Art. 226]

Sofitel Realty LLP v. Income-tax officer (TDS)(2023) 457 ITR 18 / 294 Taxman 766 /(2024) 338 CTR 521(Bom) (HC)