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. 276C: Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – Bogus purchase – Estimate of 12.5 per cent of Bogus Purchase upheld by CIT(A) and ITAT – No penalty was levied -High Court held that prima facie ingredients of offenses are satisfied – Assessee has wilfully and intentionally evaded his tax liability- Writ petition to quash the prosecution was dismissed . [S. 148, 279(1), Art. 226 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S. 482 ]

Nayan Jayantilal Balu v. UOI (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Manufacture of high end jewellery-Not maintained documents as required due to practical difficulties-Levy of penalty is held to be not valid. [S. 92D(3), Rule 10D(3)]

DCIT v. Kama Schachter Jewellery (P.) Ltd. (2021) 189 ITD 21 / 213 TTJ 537/ 205 DTR 180 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-A.O examined the documents furnished based on inquiry during Assessment-Revision is held to be not valid. [S. 54F]

Shivratan ShriGopal Mundada v. ACIT (2021) 212 TTJ 793 / 88 ITR 42 (SN)/ 202 DTR 441 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Order passed u/s. 143(3) r/w sec 153B, after approval from Jt. CIT u/s 153D-Revision of Order passed by PCIT is nullity and void ab initio-Admissibility of documents seized from third party-No corroborative evidence brought on record-Considered as inadmissible evidence in proceedings u/s 263. [S. 143 (3), 153B, 153D,Indian Evidence Act,1872, S.65B(4)]

Abha Bansal (Smt.) v. PCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 545 / 89 ITR 324/ 208 DTR 265 (Delhi)(Trib.)/Basant Bansal v. PCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 545/ 89 ITR 324/ 208 DTR 265 (Delhi.)(Trib.) Roop Kumar Bansal v. PCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 545/ 89 ITR 324/ 208 DTR 265 (Delhi.)(Trib.) Basant Bansal v. PCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 545/ 89 ITR 324/ 208 DTR 265 (Delhi.)(Trib.) Roop Kumar Bansal v. PCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 545/ 89 ITR 324 / 208 DTR 265 (Delhi.)(Trib.)/Pankaj Bansal v. PCIT (2021) 212 TTJ 545/ 89 ITR 324 / 208 DTR 265 (Delhi.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Unexplained moneys-When during scrutiny assessee had submitted all relevant details regarding loans and advance and explained that said advance was returned back in next year, AO after due verification passed order, invocation of revision was unjustified. [S.69A]

Nilkanth Stone Industries v. PCIT [2021] 189 ITD 718 (Surat)(Trib.)

S. 253 : Appellate Tribunal-Death of assessee-mandatory to file a revised form 36-Failure to do so appeal shall stand abated-Liberty is given to the parties to file application for revival along with revised Form No 36 in accordance with law. [S.254 (1), ITAT R, 26, Form No. 36]

ACIT v. Chironji Lal Shivhare and Anr. (2021) 189 ITD 692 (Agra)(Trib.)

S. 234A : Interest-Default in furnishing return of income-Search and seizure-the interest u/s. 234B is to be levied only on the additional tax levied on the enhanced income determined u/s. 153A, r.w.s.143 of the Act. [S. 143(3), 153A 234B]

Ahmed Shareef v. Dy. CIT (2021) 189 ITD 522 (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 206AA : Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Deduction at source-Short deduction of tax-Non provision of PAN-Section 206AA cannot override DTAA in case of payment made to non-resident. [S. 90, 195]

Air India Ltd v. ITO (2021) 190 ITD 388 / 212 TTJ 109 / 201 DTR 257 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay-Royalties/fees for technical services-Payment made to US based company towards cost reimbursement on which parties had equal right to use and not paid amount to royalty, levy of interest u/s. 201(1A) is unjustified-DTAA-India-USA. [S. 9(1)(vi), 195, 201 (IA), Art, 12]

Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University-PDPU. v. ITO (2021) 189 ITD 110 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Agency Agreement-Principal and agent relationship-Sales commission for services rendered outside India-Not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 5(2), 9(1)(vii), 40(a)(i)]

Prime Oceanic Pvt. Ltd v. ITO (2021) 212 TTJ 17 (UO) (Jaipur)(Trib.)