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. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Subsidy-Erroneously treated as revenue-Return was processed under section 143(1)-Revision application was rejected without condoning the delay-Power should be exercised in a liberal manner-Delay should be condoned where there is sufficient cause for it.[S. 264(3), Art. 226]

Jindal Worldwide Ltd v. PCIT (2024) 466 ITR 672 (Guj)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue- More than one source of income-Addition made in respect of one source-Failure to consider genuineness of transactions in respect of other sources of income-Order of Assessing Officer erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

CIT v. Dhananjay Kumar Yadav (2024) 466 ITR 196 /159 taxmann.com 638 (Pat)(HC)

S. 260A: Appeal-High Court-Assessment-Income from undisclosed sources-Deletion of addition is justified-No substantial question of law. [S. 69, 143(3)]

PCIT v.GTM Builder and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. (2024)466 ITR 440/163 taxmann.com 75 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Tushar Kunar (2024)466 ITR 440/163 taxmann.com 75 (Delhi)(HC) PCIT v. Sargam Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2024) 466 ITR 440/163 taxmann.com 75 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record-Failure to apply CBDT Circular-Error which could be rectified [S. 119]

Ajit Pramod Kumar Jogi (Late) v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 694 /158 taxmann.com 578(Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Additional ground-Agricultural land-Capital asset-Tribunal deciding nature of one piece of land and not deciding with respect to other-Order of Tribunal is set aside and matter remanded.[S. 2(14), 260A]

Shailesh B. Patel v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 776 (Guj)(HC)

S. 249 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Form of appeal and limitation-Direction to pay part of demand in instalments within time frame as stipulated by Court-Department is given liberty to recover tax on failure to satisfy conditions of payment.[S.69, 115BBE, 143(1), 144, 144B, 147, 249(4)(b), 250, Art. 226]

Alka Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2024)466 ITR 390/161 taxmann.com 701 (Ker)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases Granting Immunity from penalty or prosecution provided conditions imposed by it fulfilled-Non-fulfilment of conditions-Immunity cannot be claimed.[S. 142(2A), 245C, Art. 226]

Patliputra Builders Ltd. v ITSC (2024)466 ITR 72 (Pat)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Instructions of Central Board Of Direct Taxes-Failure to refund amounts payable under Form 5 issued Under Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 Read With Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020-Assessee entitled to interest on refund for period from date of issue of Form 5 till date of payment.[S. 237, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Rules, 2020, Art. 226]

UPS Freight Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2023] 156 taxmann.com 489 / (2024)466 ITR 51/ 336 CTR 261 (Bom)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Disability pension-Retired Officer of Indian Army-Arrears of disability pension received in December 2008-Entitled to exemption-Strictures-Court directed the Revenue for refund of tax paid by assessee with interest at 9 per cent. per annum within one month with costs of RS. 1 lakh. If the payment was not made within the stipulated period interest was to be paid at 18 per cent. per annum from the date of entitlement till actual payment-Delay of 279 days, SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[Pension Regulations for the Army, Rule, 173, Art. 136]

PCIT v. Jaswinder Pal Singh (2024)466 ITR 249/300 Taxman 104 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Jaswinder Pal Singh (2023) 456 ITR 410 /152 taxmann.com 103 / 334 CTR 319 (P& H)(HC)

S. 206C : Collection at source-Trading-Alcoholic liquor-Seller–Buyer-Marketing of arrack-Auction or Tender-Arrack then sold in retail by excise contractors in allotted area-Excise contractors obtained only right to vend arrack on retail-Not arrack-Not bound to collect tax from them-No express provision regarding issuance of notice and affording hearing to seller before passing an order-Requirement of notice and hearing before order passed to be read into provision-Natural justice-when order entails adverse civil consequences or is prejudicial to person concerned principles of natural justice to be followed.[S. 206C(6), Karnataka Excise Act, 1965, S. 17, 71, Karnataka Excise (Arrack Vend Special Conditions Of Licences) Rules, 1967, R. 2, 4, 5, Karnataka Excise (Manufacturing and Bottling of Arrack) Rules, 1987, Rr. 3, 17.]

Excise Commissioner, Karnataka. v. Mysore Sales International Ltd(2024)466 ITR 205/ 300 Taxman 115/339 CTR 321 (SC) Editorial : Excise Commissioner, Karnataka. v. Mysore Sales International Ltd (2006) 286 ITR 136 (Karn)(HC), reversed.