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. 281B: Provisional attachment- Recovery-Stock Exchange Card—Stock Exchange Rules clearly indicate that on right of nomination vesting in the Stock Exchange under the rules, that right belongs to Exchange absolutely— The membership right is not the property of assessee – Cannot be attached . [ S.226(3) , The Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad ]

Stock Exchange Ahmedabad v. ACIT (2001) 248 ITR 209/115 Taxman 471/186 CTR 285 (SC)

S. 276C : Offences and prosecutions – Wilful attempt to evade tax – When Concealment penalty is deleted on merits – Automatic cancellation of prosecution.[ S. 271(1) (c ) , 278B Indian Penal Code 1860 , 34, 120B ,193, 196, 420 , Criminal Procedure Code , 1973, 397 , 401 ]

K. C. Builders v. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 / 135 Taxman 461 / 186 CTR 721 / 179 Taxation 418 (SC)

S.276: Offences and prosecutions—Pendency of appeal before Tribunal – Stay of prosecution proceedings under the Income Tax Act 1961 during the pendency of assessment proceedings before authorities was held to be justified. [S. S.277, 278B; Constitution of India, Art. 226, Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973S .482 ].

CIT v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal (2001) 248 ITR 830/116 Taxman 746/167 CTR 283 (SC)

S.275: Penalty – Concealment – Limitation – Appeal – Supreme Court – Questions of law raised first time – Matter set aside to Tribunal [ [S. 254(1) ,261, 271(1)(a), 271(1)(c), 271D]

CIT v. Jhabua Power Ltd. (2013) 262 CTR 277/217 Taxman 399 (SC)/(2015) 13 SCC 443

S.271(1)(c): Penalty -Concealment of particulars of income – inaccurate particulars of income- Making of claim which is not sustainable in law – Claim made in the return cannot be held to be furnishing inaccurate particulars [S. 14A, 143 ].

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158/36 DTR 449/189 Taxman 322/230 CTR 320 (2011) 220 Taxation 278 (SC)

S.269UD: Purchase of property by Central Government – Order by appropriate authority for purchase by Central Government of Immoveable property – Chapter XX-C- Constitutional validity of the said chapter – Principles of natural justice to be followed though not specifically provided – Adverse order to be supported with reasons – Interpretation of statues – Rule of reading down the provision .[ S. 269UA , 269UC, 269UE ]

C. B. Gautam v. UOI (1993) 199 ITR 530/110 CTR 179/65 Taxman 440 (SC)

S. 263: Revision by Commissioner – Assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue when two views are possible – two views should exist at the time when the revision order is passed [ S.80HHC ]

CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282/213 CTR 266/(2008) 166 Taxman 188/204 Taxation 1 (SC)

S.262: Appeal to Supreme Court – New ground relating to same issue allowed to be raised for the first time – Pure question of law
[ S.43B , West Bengal Excise (Manufacture of Country Spirit in Labelled and Capsuled Bottles) Rules, 1979 , R .6 ]

CIT v. Varas International P. Ltd (2006) 284 ITR 80/204 CTR 120/155 Taxman 202 (SC)

S.261 : Appeal to Supreme Court – Doctrine of merger – Dismissal of special leave petition – Dismissal of Appeal – Grant of interest free loan or loan at a concessional rate of interest does not result in benefit or perquisite to the employee [S. 17(2) 40A(5), Constitution of India , Art, 133, 136 ]

V. M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 383/160 CTR 225/110 Taxman 67 (SC)

S.260A : Appeal to High Court – Before pronouncing judgment the substantial question of law must be formulated – If the High Court is of the view that an appeal also involves any other substantial question of law other than that formulated earlier, it should for reasons to be recorded, first formulate the question and then hear the same – amount received towards non-compete covenant is a capital receipt not chargeable to tax [ S.4 , 28(ii)(a), 260A(4) , Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, S.100 ]

Shiv Raj Gupta v. CIT (2020) 425 ITR 420/315 CTR 601/117 taxmann.com 871 (SC)