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. 272A : Penalty-Failure to answer questions-Sign statements-Furnish information-Illness of managing trustee of trust-Reasonable cause-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 139, 272A(2)(e), 273B]

National Institute of Women Child & Rural Health Trust v. JCIT (2022) 194 ITD 214 (Chennai)(Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Bench marking is accepted-Deletion of penalty is valid. [S. 92C, R. 10D(1)]

ACIT v. DA Jhaveri (2022) 194 ITD 600 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271G : Penalty-Documents-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Valid satisfaction not recorded-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 92CA, 92D, 271(1)(c)]

ACIT v. Enhance Ambient Communication (P.) Ltd. (2022) 194 ITD 40// 220 TTJ 947 / 220 DTR 229 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 271BA : Penalty-Failure to furnish reports-International transaction-Transfer pricing-Bona fide belief-levy of penalty deleted. [S. 92CA, 92E]

Faith Intertrade v. ITO (2022) 194 ITD 474 /(2023) 222 TTJ 659/ 224 DTR 259(Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Disallowance of claim-mistakenly not added foreign exchange fluctuation amount to his income-Levy of penalty is not valid.

Vimalachal Print & Pack (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 194 ITD 671 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Not specifying the charge-Bogus purchases-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 153A, 274]

ACIL Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 194 ITD 708 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Tax effect of quantum addition under dispute by revenue was less than prescribed monetary limit as fixed by relevant CBDT Circular, revenue’s appeal was to be dismissed.

Bharath Wind Farm Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 194 ITD 636 (Chennai) (Trib.)

S. 268A : Appeal-Monetary limit-Penny stock-Shown as business income-Long term capital gains-Appeal of Revenue is as withdrawn on account of low tax effect. [S. 45]

ITO v. Palak Chinubhai Patel. (2022) 194 ITD 470 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Transferred part of converted capital asset into stock-in-trade-failure to make enquiry-Revision is valid. [S. 45, 48]

Kyori Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 194 ITD 651 (Hyd.) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Higher rate of depreciation-Non-mentioning of specific reasons for accepting explanation of assessee by AO in assessment order-Revision is not valid. [S. 32]

Reliance Payment Solutions Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 194 ITD 492 / 217 TTJ 153 / 212 DTR 297 (Mum.)(Trib.)