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.153A: assessment – Search – Less than 50 lakhs – Assessment beyond six years is bad in law . [ S.69, 132 ]

Kawaljit Singh v. ACIT (2024) 204 ITD 307 (Chd)( Trib)

S.54B: Capital gains – Land used for agricultural purposes –Investment in new agricultural land – Loan was repaid after sale consideration was received – Order of CIT(A) deleting the addition is affirmed – Cash credits – Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer . [ S. 45 ]

ITO v. Rekhchand Jain (2024) 204 ITD 333 ( Raipur)( Trib)

S.37(1): Business expenditure –Non compete fee –Capital expenditure – Entitle to depreciation – Provision for litigation and taxation matter – Matter remanded .[S.32]

Eaton Power Quality (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 323/230 TTJ 23 (UO) ( Chennai) (Trib)

S. 36(1)(viia) :Bad debt-Provision for bad and doubtful debts – Banks -Schedule bank –Average advances of rural branches – Advances outstanding as well as fresh advances are to be considered .

Canara Bank v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 358 ( Bang )(Trib)

S. 36(1)(vii) :Bad debt –Banks – Non -Rural branches – Amounts written off – Allowable as deduction.

Canara Bank v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 358 ( Bang )(Trib)

S.14A: Disallowance of expenditure – Exempt income – No expenditure is incurred for earning dividend income – Disallowance is not justified . [ R. 8D ]

Canara Bank v. DCIT (2024) 204 ITD 358 ( Bang )(Trib)

S.2(14)(iii): Capital asset – Agricultural land –Sale of agricultural land – Purchaser changed the use for commercial purposes – Not assessable as capital gains . [Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ( Amendment ) Act , 1997 ( GT & All) S.63AA,65B]

Hiten Tulshibhai Engineer v. ITO (2024) 204 ITD 98 (Ahd)( Trib)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash in excess of Rs.20000-Proper inquiry was conducted-Revision is held to be not valid.[S.40(a)(ia), 40A(3), R.6DD]

PCIT v. Shhukla Dairy Pvt Ltd (2023) 457 ITR 145 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-
Order of assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to Revenue-Revision is not valid. [S. 143(3)]

CIT (LTU). v Canara Bank (2023)457 ITR 556 (Karn)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Delay in filing appeal-Delay was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.50000-Cost was not paid-Order condoning the delay is recalled.

CIT v. Manoj Murarka (2023)457 ITR 600/ 330 CTR 613/ 156 taxmann.com 190(Cal)(HC)