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 – Capital gains – Higher valuation as per S.50C – Merely because higher valuation – Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 45, 50C, 245C, 245D, Art. 226]
Rajendra Prasad Agarwal v. ITSC (2024) 339 CTR 1/ 161 taxmann.com 638 (All) (HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Accrual – Accounting – Once an order become final and stood quashed-Subsequent order is not valid.[S. 143(3),145(1), 260A.]
PCIT v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (2024) 339 CTR 424 / 164 taxmann.com 307 ((Meghalaya) (HC)
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record -Followed Orissa High Court-Not following the Jurisdictional High Court-Mistake apparent on record – Order of Tribunal is quashed – Matter is remanded back to the Tribunal.[Art. 226]
Uttar Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 339 CTR 233/ 162 taxmann.com 201 (Guj) (HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Adjustment of more than 20 per cent against demand-Credit for TDS and TCS must be considered – Excess amount collected is directed to be refunded. [S. 239, 240 Art. 226]
Orion Security Solutions (P) LTD. v. DCIT [2023] 155 taxmann.com 411 / (2024) 339 CTR 108 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 153 : Assessment – Limitation – Remand by Tribunal – Order received by CIT (Judicial) on 31 st Jan., 2019-Adjustment of refund-Order was passed on 13th Feb., 2023-Order is set aside-Respondents are directed to re-compute the refund payable to the assessee along with statutory interest. [S. 153(3), 237, 240 244A, 254(1), Art. 226]
Readers Digest Book & Home Entertainment (India) (P) LTD. v. DCIT (2024) 339 CTR 99/ 159 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 153 : Assessment – Reassessment – Limitation -Order was passed on 28th Dec., 2006, the same was communicated to the Authorized Representative of the assessee only on 5th Jan., 2007 – Order is without jurisdiction-Order is quashed and set aside.[S. 147, 148, 153(2), Art. 226]
Mema Paul (Smt.) v. ITO (2024) 339 CTR 448 / 164 taxmann.com 778 (Manipur)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Limitation -Six days time was granted for giving reply as against the statutory minimum seven days – Natural justice-Limitation of three years-Opportunity of being heard-Information has been found recorded in the electronic books of accounts of a third party OMX Ltd-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(b), Art. 226]
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v.UOI (2024) 339 CTR 307 (All)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Limitation-Period of 10 years-Deposits in bank accounts-Assets – Foreign contribution-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, Art. 226]
Enviornics Trust v. DCIT (2024) 339 CTR 113 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Gift of shares – Transfer of capital asset-Neither S. 50CA or S. 50D were applicable – No tangible material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 45, 47, 48, 50CA, 50D, 148, Art. 226]
Jai Trust v. UOI (2024) 339 CTR 359 / 160 taxmann.com 690 (Bom) (HC)