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. 147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Non -Resident – Swiss account funds of non -resident – Credits in HSBC (Geneva) accounts originated outside Indian Territories. – Income deemed to accrue or arise in India – No business connection – Limitation – Extended period of 16 years is not applicable to non -Residents- Reassessment notice and order is held to be bad in law and quashed – DTAA -India -UK -French . [ S.6(1), 6(6), 9(1)(i) , 69,139(1) , 148 , 149(1), (149(1)( c), Art, 28 ]

Amrita Jhaveri (Ms.) v . Dy CIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

.37(1): Business expenditure – Sales and business promotion expenses -Gifting freebies to dealers and stockists – Performance in meeting sales targets – Allowable as a deduction – Circular No 5 of 2012 dt. 18 -2012 prohibits the benefit of freebies directly or indirectly to medical practioners and their professional associations and not to dealers and stockists .

Dy .CIT v. Curosis Healthcare Private Limited ( Jaipur )( Trib) www.itatonline .org.

Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1948, ,S. 41: Endorsement of instruments on which duty has been paid – Development agreement – Alternative accommodation – Re development – Reference to re-development and homes is to be read to include garages, galas, commercial and industrial use and every form of society re-development – No stamp duty on permanent accommodation agreement(PAAA) , if the development agreement is stamped – Findings are not limited to the facts of the present cases only . [ S. 34, 39, 40 ]

Adityaraj Builders v . State of Maharashtra ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Shell company – Natural justice – Reply was filed in response to notice under the old regime – Order passed without considering the objection was set aside – Directed to pass the order considering the objections filed by the assessee. [S.143(2), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art , 226 ]

Sahil Infra Creative Pvt Ltd v. ITO (Surat) (2023) 455 ITR 11 / 294 Taxman 113 ( Guj)( HC) www.itatonline.org

Black Money ( Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets ) and Imposition of Tax Act , 2015 )

S.43: Penalty for failure to furnish in return of income, information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset ( including financial interest in any entity ) located outside India – Foreign insurance policy was not declared in the return- Bonafide mistake – Levy of the penalty of Rs 10 lakhs was deleted. [ S.10(3), Income -tax Act , 1961 , 139 ]

Addl. CIT v. Tejal Ashis Mehta ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

Right to Information Act ,(22)of 2005 .

S. 8(1)(e): Exemption from disclosure -Legal advice given by Advocate General to State Government-Lawyer and client is fiduciary relationship – exempt from disclosure. [ Art. 165(2) ]

Secretary to Advocate General , Ernakulam v . State Information Commissioner AIR 2023 Kerala 72

Advocate Act , 1961

S. 34: Power of High Courts to make rules – Imposition of dress code for advocates – National company law Tribunal – Only High Courts can frame rules for dress code for the appearance of advocates before courts and Tribunals, subordinate to it -Tribunals have no authority to issue any instructions determining the dress code for the appearance of advocates before it .[ Bar Council of India Rules ( 1975) , Chap .4 , Companies Act ( 18 of 2013) , S. 432 , National Company Law Tribunal Rules ( 2016) R. 16 (f) , 124 ]

R.Rajesh v.UOI AIR 2023 Madras 107

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Addition was deleted-Cancellation of penalty is valid. [Art. 136]

PCIT v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2023) 452 ITR 246 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (ITA No. 155 of 2019 dt 8-11-2021 (Raj)(HC) is affirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loss on account of sale of shares-Shares were undervalued-Revision is justified. [S. 263(3)]

S. Palaniappan v. CIT (2023) 452 ITR 91 (Mad.)(HC) S. Manickavasagam v. ITO (2023) 452 ITR 91 (Mad.) (HC) Editorial : S. Manickavasagam v. ITO (2010) 3 ITR 304 (Chennai)(Trib.), affirmed.

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Share transaction-Assessing Officer applied his mind-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order was affirmed-Appeal-High Court-Condonation of delay-Administrative reasons-The Principal Commissioner had casually termed the delay of 109 days as a delay of only of “few days” which indicated the lack of seriousness on the part of the Department in adhering to the timeline stipulated under the Act. Delay of 109 days was not condoned-Monetary limits-Includes appeal against revision order-Appeal is not maintainable [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Pushp Steel and Mining Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 452 ITR 66 / 291 Taxman 586 (Delhi)(HC)