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. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue –
Denial of exemption-Trust or institution-Investment restrictions-Jurisdictional High Court in favour of assessee when the Assessing Officer has passed the order-Revision order is quashed-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 2(15), 13(8) 143(3), 260A]

CIT(E) v. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (2024) 301 Taxman 501 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Method of accounting-Once order under S. 263 became final and stood quashed-No question can arise of passing another order as it will be invalid in eyes of law. [S. 143(3), 145, 260A]

PCIT v. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. [2024] 469 ITR 4 /164 taxmann.com 307 (Meghalaya)(HC).

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limited scrutiny for verification of cash deposits during demonetization period-Revision order is quashed by the Tribunal-Rectification application of Revenue is rejected-Order of Tribunal rejecting the rectification application is affirmed. [S.68 69C, 115BBE,263, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Green Park (2024) 301 Taxman 617 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Assessment against dead person-Legal heirs-No notice was served on the legal heirs-Order is set aside-CIT(A) is directed to hear the appeal a fresh.[S.143(3), 159, Art. 226]

Sitaram Raikwar v. NFAC (2024) 301 Taxman 528 (MP)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Procedure-Application-Scope of provision-Power of ITSC to pass an order not limited only to aspects covered by application of settlement preferred by the assessee-ITSC empowered to render decision on issues which find mention in report of CIT-Order of Settlement Commission is affirmed.[S. 153A, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

Harsh Dhanuka HUF v. PCIT (2024) 469 ITR 162 / 164 taxmann.com 193/341 CTR 154 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 240 : Refunds-Appeal –Order of Tribunal-Refund denied- Revenue is bound to refund amount to the Assessee with interest as per the provisions of Section 240 and there is no onus on the part of the Assessee to complete any formality for the amount of refund due-Non-functionality of TRACES Portal is not a ground for denying benefit arising out of statutory provision under the Act. [S.201(1)(201(IA), 254(1), Form Non26B, Art. 226]

Birla Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 301 Taxman 357 (MP)(HC)

S. 206AA :Requirement to furnish Permanent Account Number-Provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 cannot override Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement.[S.90, 260A]

CIT (IT) v. Edgeverse Systems Ltd. [2024] 469 ITR 267 (Karn)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay –Order passed beyond four years-Barred by limitation-Income deemed to accrue or arise in India-Fees for technical services- [S.9(1)(vii), 195 201(1), 201(IA), 260A]

Nilgiri Dairy Farm (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (IT) (2024) 301 Taxman 410 (Karn)(HC)

S. 201 : Deduction at source-Failure to deduct or pay –Survey-Direct payment to non-resident-Contractor-Deducted tax at 2 per cent under section 194C-Tribunal is justified in directing Assessing Officer to calculate interest on amount which was paid by contractor as self-assessment tax till date it was deposited and such interest was to be paid by assessee for not deducting tax at source.[S.133A, 194C (4), 195(2), 201(1), 201(IA), 260A]

DIT v. Ahmedabad Vadodara Expressway Co Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 590 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search- Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Search conducted in February 2022-Notice under S. 148 dated 30.03.2023 seeking to re-open assessment for A.Y. 2013-14-Relevant A.Y. fell beyond ten years block period set out in S. 153C and thus notice was time barred. [S. 132, 148, 149(1), 153A, Art. 226]

Dinesh Jindal v. ACIT (2024) 469 ITR 32 / 164 taxmann.com 746 (Delhi)(HC)