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. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Hospital – Providing medicines and medical aid to needy and poor people – Free distribution of medicines – Tribunal was justified in allowing application of income on account of free distribution of medicines. [S. 133(6)]
CIT (E) v. Anandalok (2023) 293 Taxman 727/(2024) 460 ITR 338 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 4 : Charge of income-tax – Sales tax subsidy – Issue attained finality in assessment year 2002 -03 – Order passed by Tribunal for relevant assessment year was not required to be given effect and order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was restored. [S. 250]
CIT v. ITC Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 59 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Cash credits –Accommodation entries – Additional evidence – Violation of Rule 46A by CIT(A)- Failure to produce the parties – Assessing Officer should exercise his powers under section 131 of the Act – Assessee cannot be compelled to produce the parties – Order of Tribunal rejecting the miscellaneous application and reversing the order of the CIT(A) is quashed and set aside – CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal a fresh in accordance with law and following the procedure prescribed as per Rule 46A of the Income -tax Rules , 1962 . [S. 68, 131 , 254(1) , Art . 226 ]
Pravir Polymers Private Ltd v . ITO ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org
S. 45(3) : Capital gains – Transfer of capital asset to firm –Land – Stock in trade- Transferring the assets at nil value – Revaluation by the Firm and crediting the accounts of the partners in latter years – Addition cannot be made in the hands of the partners in the year of revaluation and crediting in the account of partner – Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed . [ S. 45 , 48 , 147, 148 ]
DCIT v. Abdulsattar Suleman ( Mum)( Trib) www.itaatonline .org .
S. 277A : Offences and prosecutions-Falsification of books-or documents etc.-Principal Director of Income-tax (Inv.) filed a complaint against assessee for offences under sections 277A and 278B-Warrant of arrest was issued against assessee-A senior officer of income-tax department was complainant, there would be no requirement of compliance with section 202 of CrPC-Assessee is an artificial person and not a natural person, warrant of arrest could not be issued. [S. 278B, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 202, 305]
Karan Kothari Jewellers (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal (2023) 292 Taxman 177 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Show-cause notice issued gave less than 24 hours to assessee to appear-Shorter period of less than 24 hours could be termed as a pure and simple breach of principle of natural justice-Penalty order was quashed and set aside. [S. 274, Art. 226]
Sharmila Vikram Mahurkar v. ACIT (2023) 292 Taxman 461 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 268A : Appeal-Instructions-Circulars-Monetary limits-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-SLP of revenue is dismissed, since tax amount involved in instant case was less than Rs. 2 crores.[S. 54(1)]
CIT v. C. Aryama Sundaram (2023) 292 Taxman 71 (SC) Editorial : C. Aryama Sundaram v. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 1/ 258 Taxman 10 (Mad)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Co-operative societies-Interest on deposits-Income from other sources-PCIT has not carried out any inquiry on his own-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 56, 80P(2)(i)]
PCIT v. Gunja Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd. (2023) 292 Taxman 46 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Capital gains-Land used for agricultural purposes-Failure to record satisfaction-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 45, 54B]
PCIT v. Rachana Todi (Smt.) (2023) 292 Taxman 30 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 254(2) : Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Limitation-Rectification was filed much prior to amendment made in section 254(2) which came into effect from 1-6-2016-Within a period of four years from date of actual receipt of judgment-Law prevailing on date of filing of miscellaneous application to be applied-Order of Tribunal is set aside.
Kamal Nayan Singh v. DY. CIT (2023) 292 Taxman 289 (Jharkhand)(HC)