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. 153C : Assessment – Income of any other person – Search and seizure – Satisfaction note pertained to non-searched entity and material which was alluded to pertained to assessment year 2019-20 only- Notice pertaining to AYs 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2020-21 is quashed and set aside. [S. 132 , Art. 226 ]
Dev Technofab Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( [2024] 166 taxmann.com 514 (Delhi)( HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , Dev Technofab Ltd. v. DCIT, [2024]301 Taxman 72 (SC)
S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Accommodation entries – Sale of shares – All material with respect to transaction at time of original assessment – Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation- Change of opinion – Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed . [ S. 68, 132, 148 , Art. 226 ]
AIM Fincon (P) Ltd v. ACIT( 2024) 166 taxmann.com 680 ( Guj)( HC) . Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed for failure to explain the delay of 489 days in filing of SLP , ACIT v. AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 169 (SC)
S. 132: Search and Seizure –Strictures – Warrant issued – Search premises left blank – Witnesses from different place – Panchnama – Search invalid – Documents to conduct search fabricated- An income tax inspection and/ or investigation would be permissible only in respect of a past event but not for possible future contingencies- Department is directed to refund cash of Rs.5.00 crores to assessee with interest at 12% p.a. along with costs of Rs.20,000. [ S.132A, 132B, Art. 14, 226 , 300A ]
Vipul Kumar Patel v. UOI [2024] 167 taxmann.com 140 (Telangana) ( HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed, as infructuous as subsequent assessments have been made .PDIT (Inv) v. Vipul Kumar Patel (2024) 301 Taxman 408 (SC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure – Civil contractor – Widening and strengthening of existing road – Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority – Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount – Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed .[ S.260A ]
Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v.ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 323( Bom)( HC) Editorial : SLP of assesse is dismissed , Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 407 (SC)
S. 271D : Penalty-Takes or accepts any loan or deposit-Receipt of consideration for sale of immovable property in cash-Registered document duly signed by vendor and purchaser showing receipt in cash-Wrong entry-Adjustment thorough a journal entry-Failure to modify in the document-Levy of penalty is affirmed.[S. 269SS, 274]
Nammalvar Lingusamy v. ACIT (2024)110 ITR 31 (SN) (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 271B : Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Not maintaining the books of account-Not liable for penalty for failure to get accounts audited.[S.44AA, 44AB, 139(1),148, 271A]
Pradipbhai Dayabhai Aghara v ITO (2024)110 ITR 14 (Trib) (SN)(Rajkot)(Trib)
S. 271B :Penalty-Failure to get accounts audited-Obtained tax audit report before due date-Wrongly mention as no in the column-Penalty is deleted.[S.44AA, 44AB]
Paras Mal Sethia v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 16 (SN) (Jodhpur)(Trib)
S. 271AAB : Penalty-Search initiated on or after Ist day of July 2012-Surrender of income in the course of search-Failure to disclose in the return-Penalty is justified in respect of difference added as undisclosed income-Limb under which penalty is to be levied spelt out and assessee not offered explanation-Limitation-Tribunal passing order in quantum appeal on 27-9-2019 and penalty order passed on 23-3-2020-Order is within prescribed time-limit-No violation of principle of natural justice. [S.271AAB(1)(c), 274(1), 275(1)]
Summit Online Trade Solutions P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 8 (SN)/228 TTJ 253/ 235 DTR 1 (Chennai)(Trib)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge in the notice-Levy of penalty is not justified-Estimated addition of 100 Per Cent. of purchases reduced to 30 Per Cent. of purchases by Commissioner (Appeals)-Estimated addition involving inherent subjectivity-Penalty is not warranted. [S. 274]
S. Sagar Enterprise v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 68 (SN)(Mum)(Trib)