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. 195 : Deduction at source-Non-resident-Interest neither paid nor claimed as an expense not subject to withholding tax-Limitation-Failure to deduct or pay-Order for the financial year 2010-11 was passed seven years after the end of the financial year is held to be barred by limitation. [S. 201(1), 201(IA), 201(3)]
DCIT v. Coffee Day Enterprises Ltd. (2020) 60 CCH 0512 / 213 TTJ 172 (Bang.)(Trib.)
S. 163 : Representative Assessee-AO passed an order holding Assessee as representative assessee/agent of the non-resident-TheTribunal held that Assessee’s status mentioned as individual as against representative assessee in the order giving effect to ITAT’s directions is a curable defect. [S. 45, 50C, 160(1), 292B]
Banwari Lal Sharma v. ITO, (2021) 62 CCH 0504 / 213 TTJ 307 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
S. 158BD : Block assessment-Undisclosed income of any other person-Notice was issued before receipt of seized material from the Assessing Officer of the searched person-Order was quashed. [S. 132, 132A]
Skytone Capital Services Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 213 TTJ 462 / 205 DTR 313 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Adjustment of current year loss-Income declared u/s. 158D of the Act-Debatable issue cannot be rectified. [S. 158BD]
Rakesh Kumar Pandita v. ACIT (2021) 207 DTR 473 / 91 ITR 65 (SN) / 214 TTJ 918 (SMC) (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Surrendered income-Survey-Business income-Increasing the rate of tax from 30 percent to 60 percent and levying surcharge and cess on undisclosed income is held to be not valid. [S. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D, 115BBE, 131, 133A]
Hari Narain Gattani v. Dy. CIT (2021) 199 DTR 121 (Jaipur)(Trib.)
S. 153D : Assessment-Search-Approval-Non applicability of mind by the Addl. CIT-Approval was granted without application of mind-Order was quashed. [S. 153A]
Inder International v. ACIT (2021) 213 TTJ 251 / 205 DTR 129 (Chd.)(Trib.)
S. 153D : Assessment-Search-Approval-Prior approval cannot be granted over the phone-Approval on fax/ email can be considered approval in law if it fulfils other requirements of law-Order passed before receiving the approval-Order is null and void. [S. 153A]
Madan Lal v. Dy. CIT (2021) 214 TTJ 958 / 63 CCH 305 (Amritsar)(Trib.)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-No incriminating material was found during search-Statement of third party not sufficient to fasten any liability upon-Addition is deleted. [S. 131, 132]
ACIT v. Navaratna Estates (2021) 91 ITR 397 (Vishakha)(Trib.) ACIT v. Vision Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 443 (Delhi) (Trib.)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Assessments for 2006-07 and 2007-08 beyond purview of assessment-Amendment with effect from 1-4-2017 that block period for other person would be same six assessment years-prospective-Satisfaction note-Must justify that document found during search does not belong to person in respect of whom search conducted and clearly display reasons based for satisfaction that seized documents belong to another person-Satisfaction of higher forum, Settlement Commission, would prevail over opinion of Assessing Officer-Pen drive seized during search-Addition made on protective basis in hands of assessee on basis of Satisfaction Note that pen drive belonged to assessee-Satisfaction of Assessing Officer of person in respect of whom search conducted defective and not sustainable in law-Order of Settlement Commission gives protection only to applicants before Settlement Commission-Substantive additions deleted-Protective additions cannot survive except in case of finding that income belongs to person in whose hands protective additions are made. [S. 132, 153A, 245D, 245I]
Dy. CIT v. Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Ltd. (2021) 91 ITR 295 (Delhi)(Trib.)
S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Documents found in the premises of third party-Addition on the basis of such documents are held to be not valid [S. 132(4A), 292C]
Ronak Processors (P) Ltd v. ITO (2021) 209 TTJ 641 / 197 DTR 377 (Jodhpur)(Trib.)