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-Deletion of concealment penalty-Concealment-Acquittal by Trial Court-Presumption of innocence of accused-Appeal against acquittal is dismissed. [S.271(1)(c), 277]

UOI v. Pusparani Khana (2024)469 ITR 608 / 151 taxmann.com 249 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions-Wilful attempt to evade tax-Concealment of income-Deletion of penalty-Prosecution is not valid. [S. 271(1)(c),

Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia v. Dy. CIT (Inv) (2024)469 ITR 593 / 156 taxmann.com 636 (Mad)(HC)

S. 276B : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to pay to the credit tax deducted at source-Compounding of offences-Application for compounding-Delay in application-Discretion of authority to condone delay should be exercised in judicious manner. [S. 279]

SMV Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)469 ITR 540 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Cash credits-Prescribing 20 Per Cent. predeposit of demand is justified-Order of Tribunal is sustained.[S.68, 220(6), Art. 226]

PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2024)469 ITR 624 / 165 taxmann.com 613 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v.Dy. CIT (2024)469 ITR 641 (SC), order modified.

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal-Stay-Cash credits-Prescribing 20 Per Cent. predeposit of demand Income-Tax-Thirty Per Cent. of demand paid by assessee-Order of High Court is modified granting stay of recovery pending appeal to Tribunal-Tribunal is directed to decide appeal on merits without being influenced by observations of High Court.[S. 68, 220(6), Art. 136]

PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)469 ITR 641 (SC) Editorial : PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)469 ITR 624 (Delhi)(HC) is modified.

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Stay of demand-Not proved prima facie case-Condition of pre deposit of 20 Per Cent. of demand for grant of stay discretionary-Financial stringency not proved-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 156, 220 (6), Art. 226]

PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)469 ITR 612 / 157 taxmann.com 468 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Search and seizure and Survey-Disclosing unaccounted income-Order of settlement Commission on basis of volumetric report of person not qualified and incompetent to evaluate mined ore submitted by department is unsustainable-Withdrawal of writ petition against survey proceedings with liberty to pursue issue of volumetric report before Settlement Commission-No presumption of estoppel against assessee by withdrawal of writ petition-Assessment of undisclosed income can be done only with reference to incriminating material recovered from search and not post search material-Report stating inaccuracies of report prepared by incompetent person and submitted by Department-Dismissal of statutory mining plan prepared under mines and minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 and approved by IBM-Order of Settlement Commission erroneous-Matter remanded to Settlement Commission.[S. 132, 132, 133A, 153A, 245C, 245D(4) Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957, Art. 226]

S. R. Ferro Alloys v. ITSC (2024)469 ITR 438 / 81 taxmann.com 481 (MP)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Grant of approval without application of mind-Benefits of giving opportunity of hearing after issue of initial notice under Section 148A(b)-Order passed under Section 148A(d) without giving requested opportunity of hearing-Approval by Principal Commissioner without application of mind-Order and consequent notice is set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148(A)(b) 148A(d), 149(1((b), 151, Art. 226]

Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO (2024)469 ITR 262 / 151 taxmann.com 117 (Bom)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed as the reasons for 201 days assigned for seeking condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law to condone the same. ITO v. Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia (2024) 469 ITR 315 / 168 taxmann.com 41/ 302 Taxman 89 (SC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Precedent-Reference decided in favour of assessee-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed-Not establishing public interest on divergence of opinion among High Courts or Just Cause-Appeal is dismissed-Business income-Interest on securities-Business income-Business expenditure-Salaries and perquisites-Disallowance is to be restricted to expenditure apportioned under profits and gains of business or profession and not under head interest on securities.[S. 18, 20(1(i), 28, 36, 37(1), 40A(5), Art. 136]

CIT v Citi Bank N. A. (No. 2) (2024)469 ITR 398 (SC) Editorial : Citi Bank N.A. v. CIT (2003) 262 ITR 47 (Bom)(HC) CIT v. Citi Bank N. A. (No. 4) (2024)469 ITR 410 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Citi Bank N. A (ITR No. 349 of 1995 dt. 5-3 2003 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Payment of taxes and interest-Evidence of payment-Rejection of application is not valid. [Art. 226]

Binny Ltd. v.Interim Board for Settlement (2024)469 ITR 597 / 158 taxmann.com 508 (Mad)(HC)