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. 68 : Cash credits – Credit balance of the associate parties – Purchase transactions- Identity , creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions of purchases made is proved – Deletion of addition is affirmed – No substantial question of law .[ S. 260A ]

PCIT v. Attire Designers Pvt Ltd (2023) 455 ITR 697 / 290 Taxman 551 /(2022) BCAJ-October -P. 68 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 11 : Property held for charitable purposes – Corpus donation – When the Assessee-trust has received donations for specific purposes with specific directions by donors alongwith signatures of such donors, then such receipts are to be treated towards corpus donations. [ S. 12 ]

CIT .v. Shri Jain Shwetamber Nakoda Parshwanth Tirth (2022) 211 DTR 310 / 325 CTR 550 (Raj) (HC)

S. 254(2A): Appellate Tribunal –Stay- ITAT has power to grant stay only if the asseessee pays 20 % of the tax in dispute or furnishes equal amount of security of like amount [ S. 220(6) , 253, 254(1)]

Hindustan Lever Ltd v. Dy .CIT (2022) 197 ITD 802 / 220 TTJ 516 /219 DTR 238( Mum)( Trib) . www.itatonline .org

Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

S. 107: Appeals to Appellate Authority – Powers of Revisional Authority – Limitation – Electronic filing of appeals – Orders received physically -Orders were not uploaded – Limitation period would start when order is uploaded on GST portal and not when order is received physically [ S. 108 Art, 226 ]

Jose Joseph v. Asst. Commr. of Central Tax (2022) (62) G.S.T.L 464 ( Ker)(HC)

Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017

S.79:Recovery of tax – Order passed relying on material which was supplied to violates principle of natural justice – Matter remanded back for fresh adjudication after furnishing material relied upon and after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner .[ Art, 226 ]

Lakshmi Sowjanya Enterprises v. ACIT( 2022) (64) G.S.T.L. 158( AP)(HC)

Central Goods and Service Tax Act , 2007 ( CGST)

S. 29: Cancellation or suspension of registration- Show cause notice – Adjudication order vague – Cancellation of Registration was not sustainable – Stricture against Department – Adjudication order was quashed – Court observed that it was beyond under standing of Court as to why its officers were not ready to understand and improve .[ Art , 226 ]

Rafik Alibhai Makvana v . State of Gujarat (2022) (59) G.S.T.L 3 (Guj)(HC)

Harassment by Department – Unnecessary SLP – Respondent suffering from Cancer – Cost of Rs 1,00,000 was imposed on the Officer to be recovered from his salary .

ADDE v. Kamal Ahsan & Anr www.itatonline .org (SC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Claim of set off of non speculative business loss against the profit of speculated business-Revision order is quashed. [passed by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act is quashed. [S. 28 (i), 72, 73]

Puli Ashok Reddy v. PCIT (2022) 64 CCH 372 / 216 TTJ 977 / 212 DTR 249 (Hyd.)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-When valid and lawful agreement is entered by the parties prior to 1 April 2014 but the property was registered after said date, provisions of the amended section 56(2)(vii)(b) would be inoperative and therefore an assessment order passed after due consideration of all facts but without invoking the provisions of the amended section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

Naina Saraf v. PCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 1 (UO) (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Bogus accommodation entries-Revision on the basis of roving enquiries-CBDT circular on no set-off of loss against deemed income u/s 115BBE applicable w.e.f. 1st April 2017-Invocation of section 263 jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT is invalid-Income assessed remains same even pursuant to revision-Revision is not valid. [S. 56, 68, 115BBE, 143(3)]

Kamal Vyas v. PCIT (2022) 216 TTJ 7 / 211 DTR 25 (Mum.)(Trib.)