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. 10B: Export oriented undertakings-Agreement with Central Government-Ministry of Commerce granting hundred percent export oriented unit-Entitle to exemption-Exemption cannot be denied merely on the ground that the assessee has not claimed exemption in return of income. [S. 10A, 139, Industrial (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 S. 14]

PCIT v. Wizard Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2022) 286 Taxman 112 / 218 DTR 184/ 328 CTR 849(Cal.)(HC)

S. 10 (23C): Educational institution-Medical university-Statement of accountant of a promotor/sponsor-Books of account-Refusal of registration and approval under section 80G is held to be not valid. [S. 10(23)(vi), 12AA, 80G (5)(vi)]

CIT€ v. Pacific Medical University (2022) 137 taxmann.com 207 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue dismissed, CIT (E) v. Pacific Medical University (2022) 286 Taxman 358 (SC)

S. 36(1)(vii): Bad Debts – Business loss- Amount paid to builder towards acquisition of commercial premises – Write off of the amount as irrecoverable neither allowable as bad debt nor as business loss – Assessee to prove both conditions of section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) of the Act are satisfied- [S. 28(i) 36(2), 37 (1) ]

PCIT v. Khyati Realtors Private Limited ( 2022) 447 ITT 167 / 217 DTR 145/ 328 CTR 249/ 289 Taxman 60(SC) www.itatonline .org Editorial : Order in PCIT v. Khyati Realtors (P.) Ltd ( 2019) 108 taxmann.com 449 (Bom) (HC) , reversed.

S. 268A : Appeal – Application –Reference – Instructions – Monetary Limits- Exceptions —Circular No. 23 of 2019 providing that monetary limits would not apply where CBDT by special order directed filing of appeals — The legislative intent is clear that circular dated September 6, 2019 would not apply with retrospective effect-Though the Revenue had alleged organized tax evasion activity on the part of the assessee in those pending appeals as on the date of Circular No. 23 of 2019, the Revenue could not be allowed to pursue these appeals. Since the tax effect involved in this batch of appeals was less than the monetary limit prescribed in the earlier circulars of the Central Board of Direct Taxes -, The Revenue was not allowed to proceed the appeals on the merits – Appeals of the revenue was dismissed .[ S. 119, 260A ]

CIT v. Surendra Shantilal Peety (2022) 445 ITR 590 (Bom)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia): Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source – Tax deposited before filing of return – No disallowance can be made- Amendment made by the Finance Act, 2010 being curative in nature required to be given retrospective operation i.e., from the date of insertion of the said provision. [ S. 139(1) ]

PCIT v. Crescent Construction Co ( 2022) 288 Taxman 730( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org Editorial : Crescent Construction Co. v. ACIT (2017 ) 82 taxmann.com 468 (Mum.)(Trib.) affirmed.

S. 271(1)(b) : Penalty-Failure to comply with notices-Wrong address-Miscommunication-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 142(1), 144, 148]

Manjit Kaur (Smt.) v. ITO (2022) 93 ITR 711 (Amritsar)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Loss-Set Off-Business or Speculation Loss-Income or loss from similar transaction held to be from business in earlier years-Change of opinion-Revision invalid. [S. 143 (3)]

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal v. PCIT (2022) 93 ITR 602 (Delhi)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Limitation-Order passed in consequence of direction of High court in writ proceedings-Order passed beyond period of twelve months-Assessing Officer did not have jurisdiction to frame assessment-Revision is bad in law. [S. 92CA, 143(3) 144C, 153(5) 153(6), 260]

PCM Stresscon Overseas Ventures Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 93 ITR 682 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 158BFA : Block assessment-Penalty-No incriminating material found or seized-Estimate of income-Benami transaction-Failure to record satisfaction-Levy of penalty is not valid. [S. 158BC, 158BF(2)]

Madho Das Bangard v. ACIT (2022) 93 ITR 622 (Jaipur)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Search and seizure-Share application money-Assessment third person-Opportunity to cross-examine alleged entry providers not provided-Reopening solely on unverified, unrectified, unsubstantiated and unconfirmed statements of third parties-Not valid. [S. 131(1)(d), 132(4), 148, 153C]

Vijayshree Food Products P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 93 ITR 206 (Delhi) (Trib.)