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. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Not shareholder of company which had advanced loan to assessee-Loan cannot be treated as deemed dividend.

Perfecta Lifestyle v. ITO (2021) 90 ITR 689 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 40 (a)(iib) :Amounts not deductible- Fee- Tax – Gallonge fee , licence fee and shop rental (KIST ) with respect to EL-9 and E.L -I licence granted will fall with in the purview of section and hence disallowable -Surcharge on Sales tax and turnover tax is not fee or charge hence not disallowable – Interpretation of taxing statutes – Same statute using different terms and expressions – Must be taken to refer to distinct and different things . [ S. 37(1)), Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (M.E.) S. 18 , Kerala Foreign Liquor Rules , 1953 , R. 15A ]

Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 492 / 209 DTR 257/ 324 CTR 209 / 286 Taxman 1(SC) Editorial , review petition is dismissed ,ACIT v. Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd (2023) 291 Taxman 357 (SC) Editorial : Decision of Kerala High Court partly affirmed and partly reversed . ( 2022) 440 ITR 496 (SC)

Wealth tax Act, 1957.

S. 2(ea): Asset – Land under acquisition by Government – Not includible .

Yudhishthira Kapur v. ACWT (2021)90 ITR 90 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

Wealth tax Act, 1957.

S. 2(e)(a): Assets – Stock in trade -Entries in books of account not relevant to decide nature of asset –Lands held as stock in trade – Not liable to be assessed as assets liable to be wealth -tax Act . [ S. 17 ]

D. Jayaraman v. ACWT (2021)90 ITR 81 (SN)(Chennai) (Trib)

S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Whatsapp messages-Employee and promoter of group-Receipt of cash not proved-Penalty cannot be levied. [S. 269SS]

Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 89 ITR 56 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-Assessee intimated Assessing Officer well in advance of inadvertence of including receipt-Assessing Officer did not specify in notice whether notice is issued for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. [S. 143(2)]

FCI Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 9 (UO) (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disclosing full facts-Levy of penalty is held to be not justified. [S. 54F]

Villo Noshir Anklesaria (Mrs.) v. ACIT (2021) 89 ITR 31 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Revision of orders prejudicial to Revenue-Twin conditions to be satisfied-Assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous in law-Revision was quashed. [S. 54F]

Virendra Singh Bhadauriya v. PCIT (2021) 211 TTJ 452 / 204 DTR 400 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limited scrutiny-The Revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was originally vested with the A.O for limited scrutiny while framing the assessment and enlarging his scope of limited enquiry. [S. 143(3), 147]

Mahendra Singh Dhankar HUF v. ACIT (2021) 212 TTJ 902 / 204 DTR 377 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Depreciation-Lease hold rights-Revision is held to be valid. [S. 32(1)(ii)]

Goldmohar Design and Apparel Park Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 209 TTJ 863 (Mum.)(Trib.)