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. 2(22)(e) : Deemed dividend-Trade advances-Security by way of mortgage-Deletion of addition is justified. [S. 132, 153A]

PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 140 taxmann.com 32 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed as with drawn due to low tax effect, PCIT v. Dwarka Prasad Aggarwal (2022) 288 Taxman 16 (SC)

. 147: Reassessment – Cash credits – Share application money – Settlement Commission accepted the returned income as per settlement petition – Reassessment notice was issued on the basis of subsequent search action in the group concern – Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act after passing of the order by Settlement Commission – Order of settlement commission is conclusive and cannot be reopened except as provided in that Chapter . [ S. 68 , 148 245D(4) , 245I ]

ACIT v . Global Holding Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Mum)(Trib.). www.itatonline .org

Civil Procedure Code , 1908.

Order III Recognised agents and pleaders -Appearances Advocates – Concession by Counsel – Concession by counsel contrary to law – Not binding on parties [Advocates Act, 1961 , S . 2(a) ]

UOI v. Manraj Enterprises ( 2022) 2 SCC 331

Constitution of India
Art:16 : Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment – Service matters – Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State – Pay Scale – Equal pay – Minimum wages – Casual workers for his employment under administrative control of PCIT as peon/watchman from 2013- Entitled to be paid minimum wages paid to salary equal to such daily wages paid to casual workers who were engaged prior to 2013 by department.[ Art , 14, 16(1) 39(d), 226 ]

PCIT v. Pankaj Singh Brijwal (2022) 142 taxmann.com ( Uttarakhand ( HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue dismissed , PCIT v. Pankaj Singh Brijwal (2022) 288 Taxman 643 (SC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020

S. 4: Filing of declaration and particular to be furnished -Time Limits up to 31-3 -2021 – Appeal disposed of by Tribunal on 22-4-2021 – After disposal of appeal declaration was filed – Rejection of declaration is valid [ S. 2(1)(a), 3 , Art , 226 ]

Talluri Vijay Rahul v. CBDT (2022) 288 Taxman 283/ (2023) 331 CTR 293/ 223 DTR 52 (Telangana)( HC)/Tellur Venkata Narayanamma ( Smt) (2022) 288 Taxman 283/ (2023) 331 CTR 293/ 223 DTR 52 (Telangana)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020
S. 3: Amount payable by declarant – Time and manner of payment – Failure to make the payment within time prescribed – No vested right – Petition was dismissed [ S. 5 , Art , 226 ]

Amit Gupta v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 207 /( 2023) 450 ITR 118 (P& H)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Limitation-Sanction-Sanction by Additional Commissioner instead of Principal Commissioner-Taxation and other laws (Relaxation of certain Provisions) Act, 2020 only extended period of limitation and not for approval by the competent Authority-Sanction by Additional Commissioner was held to be bad in law-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

J.M. Financial and Investment Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2022) 215 DTR 98/ 327 CTR 458 / (2023) 451 ITR 205 (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act 2020 (2020) 422 ITR 121 (St)

S. 3 : Amount payable by declarant-Credit for tax paid under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016-Denial of credit is held to be not valid-Directed the Revenue to give credit and rectify Form No. 3 issued under DTVSV Act with DTVSV rules. [Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, S. 183, 184, 185, 191, Art. 226]

Pinnacle Vastunirman Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (Bom.)(HC) (UR)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that the assessee has not waived the right of appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). [S. 246A, 264(4), Art. 226]

Girish Raghvan v. PCIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Business loss or speculation-Amount voluntary agreed can also be the subject matter of revision-Rejection of revision application was not valid-Directed the Commissioner to decide on merit after considering all the submissions. [S. 43(5)(d), 139, Art. 226]

Anup Lakhmichand Anand  v. CIT ( 2022) 216 DTR 401/ 328 CTR 716 (Bom.)(HC)