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

Interpretation of taxing statutes -Interpretation which effectuates object and purpose of statute preferred.-Amendment by substitution-Rule against retrospectivity. [S. 153C]

ITO v. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia (2023)453 ITR 417/ 293 Taxman 4/ 332 CTR 1/ 224 DTR 217 (SC)

S. 88 : Settlement of tax payable – Notice of demand – Petition against notice of demand -No due certificate was issued – Summary dismissal -No dues – Certificate under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme – Order of High Court not stating facts or adverting to contentions of parties -Order set aside. [S. 92, ITACT, S. 156, Art. 136, Art, 226]

R. P. Gupta v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 739 (SC) Editorial: Order in R. P. Gupta v. CIT (All)(HC) (WT No. 888 of 2018, WT No.889 of 2018 dt. 25 -7 2018) set aside.

S. 10(1) : Undisclosed Foreign Income or Assets -Interpretation – Fiscal statutes and in determining the tax liability, strict rules of interpretation – Notice issued beyond 30 Days of receiving information- Search and seizure – Response not filed -Enquiry cannot be truncated at stage of issue of notice – Guidelines issued by Central Board Of Direct Taxes -Information and Intelligence -Notice is valid -Writ petition is dismissed.[S. 8(1), 8(2), Income -tax Act, S. 132, 232(4), 153A, Art. 226]

Jitendra Virwani v. JTCIT (NO. 1) (2023)453 ITR 323 / 330 CTR 747/ 220 DTR 445 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Jitendra Virwani v. Jt.CIT (NO. 2) (2023)453 ITR 342 / 330 CTR 34/ 220 DTR 433 (Karn)(HC), order of single judge reversed.

S. 10(1) : Undisclosed Foreign Income or Assets-No Evidence of undisclosed Foreign income -Notice Issued Under Black Money Act is not valid-High Court can quash a notice if issued without jurisdiction-Interpretation of Taxing Statutes -Strict Interpretation. [S. 8(1), 8(2), Income -tax Act, S. 132, 232(4), 153A, Art. 226] Constitution Of India, Art. 226.

Jitendra Virwani v. Jt.CIT (NO. 2) (2023)453 ITR 342 / 330 CTR 34/ 220 DTR 433 (Karn)(HC) Editorial : Jitendra Virwani v. JTCIT (NO. 1) (2023)453 ITR 323 / 330 CTR 747/ 220 DTR 445 (Karn)(HC).Decision of the single judge reversed.

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax –
Application for bail -Time to surrender before Trial court and consider the application for bail -SLP of the assessee is dismissed. [S. 276(2) 278EE, Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482. [Art. 136, 226]

Ramendra v. PCIT (2023) 453 ITR 751 /294 Taxman 77 (SC)

S. 271C : Penalty – Failure to deduct at source -Failure or delay in remittances of tax deducted at source -Attracts interest and prosecution- No provision for levy of penalty- Interpretation Of Taxing statutes -Penal provisions -Strict construction. [S. 115O(2), 194B, 201(1A), 271C, 276B]

US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. v CIT (2023)453 ITR 644/ 293 Taxman 27/ 332 CTR 176/ 224 DTR 265 (SC) Eurotech Maritime Academy Pvt. Ltd. v CIT (TDS) (2023)453 ITR 644/ 293 Taxman 27/ 332 CTR 176/ 224 DTR 265 (SC) Editorial: Decision in CIT (TDS) v. Eurotech Maritime Academy Pvt. Ltd(2019) 415 ITR 463 (Ker) (HC), reversed.

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment -Cash sales – Value Added Tax Authorities accepting cash Sales- Independent finding of fact that the assessee had introduced unaccounted income as cash sales —Inaccurate particulars of income -Levy of penalty affirmed by High court -SLP of assessee is dismissed. [S.80IAC, Art, 136]

J. M. J. Essential Oil Company v. CIT (2023)453 ITR 754/ 292 Taxman 314 (SC)

S. 268A : Appeal -Instructions – Monetary Limits- Audit objection was not on the issue in the appeal – Appeal was dismissed in Limine. [S. 143(3) 260A, 263]

PCIT v. Urmila Rcp Projects Pvt. Ltd. (No. 2) (2023)453 ITR 43 / 293 Taxman 210 / 331 CTR 579/ 223 DTR 376/293 Taxman 210 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Commissioner holding view different from that of Assessing Officer on a particular issue -Revision is not justified- High Court cannot set aside finding of Appellate Tribunal unless finding is perverse.[S. 260A]

PCIT v. Britannia Industries Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 576/ 330 CTR 435 (Cal)(HC) Editorial: Order in Britannia Industries Ltd v. PCIT (2023) 102 ITR 513 (Kol)(Trib), is affirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains -Cost of improvement -Paid to shareholders under Family Settlement – Discharge encumbrances-Cost of improvement -Relinquishment of rights – Assessing Officer accepting claim -Order erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue -Revision is justified- Order of High Court reversed. [S. 45, 48, 55(1)(b)]

CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 447/ 293 Taxman 38/ 332 CTR 28/ 224 DTR 185 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd(2017) 398 ITR 603 (Bom)(HC), reversed. Refer Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd v. CIT (2014) 35 ITR 352/ (2016) 71 taxmann.com 287 (Mum)(Trib)