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. 143(3) : Assessment-Validity-Natural justice-Cash credits-Foreign in ward remittances-E-filing portal was dysfunctional-Order set aside. [S. 68, 115BBE, 143(2), 156, Art. 226]

One Mobikwik Systems (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 204 DTR 87 / 321 CTR 711 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Validity-Order passed after death-After conclusion of submission before passing of order the assessee expired-Order of Tribunal quashing of the order was set aside-The Assessing Officer was directed to issue notice to the legal representatives of the deceased and thereafter pass afresh order of assessment. [S. 159(2)]

CIT v. I. Mahabaleshwarappa (2021) 204 DTR 194 / 321 CTR 746 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Validity-Authorisation-Reason to believe-Non filing of return-Department can conduct survey at one place and Search at another place-Issue of summons is not mandatory-Search action is held to be valid. [S. 132(1)(c), 132(4), 133A, 153A, 292CC, Art. 226]

Shiva Cement Ltd. v. DIT (Inv.) ( 2021 ) 439 ITR 92 / 207 DTR 1 /323 CTR 1 ( 2022 ) 284 Taxman 306 (Orissa)(HC) Shivom Minerals Ltd. v. DIT (Inv.) ( 2021 ) 439 ITR 92 / 207 DTR 1 /323 CTR 1 ( 2022 ) 284 Taxman 306 ( 2021 ) 439 ITR 92 / 207 DTR 1 /323 CTR 1 ( 2022 ) 284 Taxman 306 (Orissa)(HC).Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed , Shivom Minerals Ltd v . DIT (Inv) ( 2022) 443 ITR 362 (St) (SC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Computation-TNMM-Alternative remedy-Writ to quash the assessment order-Writ is held to be not maintainable. [S. 92CA, Art. 226 ]

Bonfiglioli Transmission (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 203 DTR 329 / 321 CTR 726/(2023) 451 ITR 501 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Scientific expenditure paid to research association-Condition not satisfied-Alternative claim-Allowable as business expenditure. [S. 35 (1)]

PCIT v. HIS Automative Ltd. [2020] 119 taxmann.com 445 / (2021) 205 DTR 242 (Mad.)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020

S. 3: Amount payable by declarant – Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished – Appeal of assessee and department appeal – Option is with the declarant to decide which matter to be settled -Clarification issued by the CBDT is binding on the department – The Department was directed to accept the declaration filed by the assessee only in respect of appeal of assessee [ S. 4, Art , 226 ]

Rishab Steel House v. ACIT ( 2021 ) 206 DTR 205/ 322 CTR 857/ ( 2022) 440 ITR 223 ( Bom) (HC )

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020

S. 2(1)(j):Disputed tax – Tax arrear- Amount payable by the assessee could not be increased by withdrawing interest already granted under section 244A of the Act . [ S. 2(1)(o), 3, 7, Income -tax , S. 244A , Art , 226 ]

Mantelone Investment Ltd v. CIT ( 2021 ) 323 CTR 129/ 207 DTR 79/ ( 2022) 440 ITR 111 ( Bom) (HC).

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020

S. 2(1)(a)(ii): Appellant – Period of limitation for filing an appeal before the High Court was not over – Period of limitation for filing appeal would start from date of receipt of certified copy as per section 260A (2)(a)- Rejection of declaration was held to be not valid – [ Income -tax Act ,S. 260A(2)(a) , Art , 226 ]

Shwetal Rittulbbhai Vora v .PCIT ( 2021 ) 323 CTR 243/ 207 DTR 369 //(2022)441 ITR 669 ( Guj) (HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020

S. 2(1)(a)(i): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Condonation of delay – Order of condonation of delay relates back to the filing of an appeal – Rejection of application was held to be not valid [ S.3, 9 , Art , 226 ]

Karan Ventakeshwara Associates v. ITO ( 2021 ) 204 DTR 310/ 322 CTR 148 ( Bom) (HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act , 2020

S. 2(1)(a)(i): Appellant – Pendency of appeal – Condonation of delay – Appeal could be pending even if delay was not condoned, irregular or incompetent – Non availability of order cannot be the reason for not availing the benefit of any provision or scheme to the Citizens – Designated Authority was directed to accept the declaration filed by the petitioner . [ Art , 226 ]

Tushar Agro Chemicals v .PCIT ( 2021) 323 CTR 217 / 207 DTR 73 /283 Taxman 72 /(2022)441 ITR 179 ( Guj ) (HC)