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. 68 : Cash credits – Failure to furnish source , identity of parties and genuineness of transaction -Shell companies – A racket of illegal business of providing accommodation entries -Accommodation entry provider -Credit appearing in the bank account -Books of account -, Data appearing in 2 CDs are extracted by the investigating wing from books of account- Statement on oath- Order of the Tribunal is reversed – Order of CIT(A) is affirmed – The Court also directed the Institute of Chartered Accountant of India to take disciplinary action , initiate proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 , launch prosecution under Income -tax Act ,and also directed the CCIT to conduct an enquiry and fix the responsibility against the officer responsible for the for not giving effect to the order of CIT( A) . Court also directed the Registry of the High Court is to forward copy of the order to Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, National Financial Reporting Authority, The Commissioner of Police-Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai, Enforcement Director under PMLA Act, The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai Ministry of Corporate Affairs. [ S. 2(12A), 44AB,69, 131, 132(4) , 279, Chartered Accountant’s Act, 1949. Indian Penal Code/BNS, 2023. ]

PCIT v. Buniyad Chemicals Ltd. ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline.org.

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Arm’s Length Price-Domestic transactions-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Clause (I) Of Section 92BA(i)) is omitted By Finance Act, 2017, with effect from 1-4-2017-Penalty is deleted. [S.92BA, 92CA]

ITO v. Aura Spinwell Ltd. (2024)114 ITR 29 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)

S. 271AA : Penalty-Failure to keep and maintain books of accounts-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Non-Reporting of specified domestic transactions in Form 3CEB-Initiation of penalty and imposition of penalty falling under different grounds-Reasonable cause-Penalty is not sustainable.[S.92CA(3), 92D, 92E, 273B]

Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 86 (SN)(Chd)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Notice not specifying the charge-Estimation of gross profit-Penalty is deleted.[S, 274]

Shiv Agrevo Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 90 (SN)(Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Cash excess of prescribed limit-Loading and unloading-Ad-hoc disallowance-Levy of penalty is not justified.[S. 40A(3), 44AB,R. 6DD]

Ramchnd Bhulchand Rajai v. Dy.CIT(2024) 114 ITR 5 (SN)(Ahd)(Trib)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Reassessment-No difference between returned income and assessed income-Penalty is not leviable. [S. 139(4), 148]

Ajoy Sharma v.Dy. CIT (2024)114 ITR 702/232 TTJ 81 (UO) (Trib)(Jaipur)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Reassessment-Bogus purchases-Notice issued to parties returned as unserved by postal authorities-Addition on estimate basis-Deletion of penalty is affirmed. [S. 133(6), 147]

ITO v. Sunil Bhagwandas Vorani (HUF) (2024)114 ITR 146 (Mum)(Trib)

S. 270A:Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income-
Closing stock-Difference in value-Inadvertent mistake cannot be considered as misreporting of income. [S. 44AB, 270A(8)]

A.CIT v Mahashian Di Hatti P. Ltd. (2024)114 ITR 44 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-Operative Society-Interest on deposits with Co-Operative Bank-Entitled to deduction-Order of Assessing Officer is not erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue-Revision order is set aside.[S.80P(2)(d), 143(3)]

Jagadhri Co-Operative Marketing Cum Processing Society Ltd. v Pr. CIT (2024)114 ITR 631 / 227 TTJ 676 /239 DTR 99(Chd)(Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Search and Seizure-Order passed after getting approval from Joint Commissioner-Order passed after examining the documents-Addition made on third-party based on documents and recorded statements-Third party order is not revised-Double taxation–Referred documents not of impugned assessment year or not belonging to assessee-Revision order is not valid. [S.133A 153A, 153B]

Gyan Infrabuild P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)114 ITR 184/230 TTJ 273/ 239 DTR 265/162 taxmann.com 664 (Pat)(Trib)