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. 270A : Penalty for under-Reporting and misreporting of income-Immunity from imposition-Furnished all details of transactions-Disallowance cannot be considered misreporting-In absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word misreporting by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes impugned order manifestly arbitrary-Penalty was quashed-Revenue was directed to grant immunity under section 270AA of the Act. [S. 14A, 270A(9), 270AA, Art. 226]

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC (2022) 288 Taxman 768 / 219 DTR 180/(2023) 334 CTR 363 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Temporary advance in respect of nine concerns-Interest on borrowed capital-Reassessment-Rejection of revision application is held to be not valid [S. 36(1)(iii) 147, 148, Art. 226]

D.R. Patanaik v. CCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 584 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Pendency of appeal before Tribunal-Stay of proceedings-Assessing Authority could complete assessment proceedings pursuant to findings given by revisional authority-No notice of demand should be made by Assessing Authority pursuant to such order till said appeal before Tribunal was disposed off. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]

VIP Housing and Properties v. ITAT(2022) 288 Taxman 296 /(2023) 452 ITR 306(Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)-Issue was not subject matter of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)-Book profit-Revision is valid-Revisionary order passed by Commissioner under section 263 could not be said to be without jurisdiction merely because document identification number (DIN) of order was intimated one day after said order was passed. [S. 9(1)(vii), 115JB, 250, 263(1)(c), Art. 226]

Texmo Precision Castings UK Ltd. v. CIT(IT) (2022) 288 Taxman 251 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Deduction of tax at source-Contractors/sub-contractor-Cash payment-Survey-Tribunal was justified in quashing revisionary proceedings on ground that order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. [S. 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 194C, R.6DD]

PCIT v. Shukla Dairy (P) Ltd. (2022) 288 Taxman 750 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 260A : Decision of Court-High Court-Delay of 535 days-Condonation of delay was allowed.

PCIT v. Kalinga Metalics Ltd. (2022) 288 Taxman 688 /(2023)455 ITR 553 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 255 : Appellate Tribunal-Appointment of Member-Waiting list-Appointed pursuant directions of Apex Court-Shall be entitled for consideration of notional seniority and other consequential benefits-Entitled to pay only from date of his assuming charge. [Art. 32, 226, 227]

Induri Rama Rao v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 56 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Limitation-Share capital-Cash credits-Revision-Lack of enquiry-Appeal dismissed on the ground that issues raised in appeals were covered by several orders passed by Tribunal-Not dealt with merits-Matter was sent back to Tribunal to take a decision [S. 68, 260A,263]

Olympus Suppliers (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 41 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 252 : Appellate Tribunal-Members-Qualification-Appointment of Members Contempt-Not appointing the members of the Tribunal-Recommendations of the Search cum selection commission-Before recommendations are formulated and in exceptional cases where certain material comes to light after submission of recommendations, that must also be drawn to attention of SCSC so as to enable it to consider whether any modification of its recommendations is necessary. [Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, S. 3]

Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (2022) 288 Taxman 8 (SC).

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Directed to deposit 10 percent of outstanding demand. [S. 220(6), 246A, Art. 226]

Yeswath Kavitha v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 120 (Mad.)(HC)