1

COMPENDIUM OF HIGH COURT & SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

S.NO. SECTION 1 SECTION 2 KEYWORDS NAME OF CASE COURT YEAR NJRS CITATION OTHER CITATIONS SUMMARY OF ISSUE DECIDED

1 2(13) adventure in nature V. A. Jose Vs ITO Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-1207-23 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 2 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessee, a NRI, had purchased agricultural land, levelled it and sold same at higher price.
of trade 252 Taxman 386 (Kerala) It was held that transaction of sale of land amounted to 'adventure in nature of trade' and, thus,
profit arising from said transaction was taxable as 'business income'
2 2(14) agricultural land Sreedhar Asok Kumar Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-1211-6 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 145 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessee was not an agriculturist and land sold by him was never put to any agricultural
253 Taxman 204 (Kerala) use. It was held that mere categorization of land as 'Nilam' in revenue records was not suffice
to raise a presumption that it was a case of sale of agricultural land

3 2(14) agricultural land Gurdeep Singh Vs PCIT P&H High Court 2018 2018-LL-1102-45 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 257 (Punjab & The land in question was claimed by assessee to be agricultural in nature. It was falling within 5
Haryana) kilometers of municipal limits. It was held that same was to be included in definition of 'capital
assets' and would be chargeable to tax
4 2(14)(iii) agricultural land PCIT Vs A Lalichan Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1011-56 2018-TIOL-2358-HC-MAD-IT, [2019] 104 In this case, no materials was produced by assessee to show that he was carrying on
taxmann.com 30 (Madras) agricultural activities in land at any point of time except producing Chitta and Adangal for
relevant year. Moreover, relevant columns in Adangal with regard to crop and extent were left
blank. High Court held that ITAT erred in holding that said land was an agricultural land under
section 2(14)(iii)
5 2(14) 45 agricultural land Kailash Nath And Associates Vs Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1121-30 2017-TIOL-2866-HC-DEL-IT Capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) is an asset situated with the 8 Km distance
PrCIT from any municipality and not only jurisdictional municipality
6 2(14) 45 agricultural land Kailash Nath And Associates Vs Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0810-15 2018-TIOL-321-SC-IT Appeal dismissed the SLP as withdrawn
PrCIT
7 2(22) dividend in kind Kantilal Manilal Vs CIT Supreme Court 1960 1960-LL-1122-1 [1961] 41 ITR 275 (SC) Supreme Court held that dividend need not be distributed in money; it may be distributed by
delivery of property or right having monetary value
8 2(22)(e) Loan to company Sahir Sami Khatib Vs ITO Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1003-46 2018-TIOL-2095-HC-MUM-IT, [2018] 98 The assessee was holding more than 10 per cent of equity shares of lending company and also
Court taxmann.com 453 (Bombay)/[2018] 259 having substantial interest in borrowing company. It was held that amount of loan given by
Taxman 160 (Bombay) lender company to borrower company was rightly added to assessee's taxable income as
deemed dividend
9 2(22)(e) Even if HUF is not a Gopal And Sons (HUF) Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0104 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 71 (SC)/[2017] 245 The HUF was not a registered shareholder in lending company. It was held that
registered Taxman 48 (SC)/[2017] 391 ITR 1 advances/loans received by HUF is taxable as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) if Karta-
shareholder (SC)/[2017] 291 CTR 321 (SC) shareholder has substantial interest in HUF
10 2(22)(e) Payment through CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah Supreme Court 2007 2007-LL-0410-1 [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T.Act. A search conducted at
conduits ITR 433 (SC)/[2007] 209 CTR 97 (SC) assessee’s premises led to seizure of a diary, which contained purchasing of nine per cent RBI
relief bonds by assessee from funds received from two firms ‘B’ and ‘C’ in which he was a
partner. After examination of cash flow statement held that two firms were used as conduits by
assessee; that ‘A’ had made payments to ‘B’ and ‘C’ for benefit of assessee, which enabled him
to buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld finding of Assessing Officer.

11 2(22)(e) Personal loan from Sunil Kapoor Vs CIT Madras High Court 2015 2015-LL-0225-1 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 97 (Madras)/[2015] The assessee was holding 60 per cent shares of a company. He took personal loan from
company 235 Taxman 279 (Madras), [2015] 375 ITR accumulated surplus of said company. It was held that said amount would be treated as
1 (Mad) deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e), after reducing therefrom amount repaid by assessee
during year
12 2(22)(e) loan/advance given Shashi Pal Agarwal Vs CIT Allahabad High 2014 2014-LL-1209-1 [2015] 54 taxmann.com 289 Lending of money was not part of business of lending companies. It was held that
to assessee- Court (Allahabad)/[2015] 229 Taxman 307 loan/advance given to assessee-shareholder would be treated as deemed dividend under
shareholder (Allahabad)/[2015] 370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) section 2(22)(e)

13 2(22)(e) Loan from subsidiary Star Chemicals (P.) Ltd Vs CIT Bombay High 1993 1993-LL-0226-1 [1994] 72 Taxman 279 (Bombay)/[1993] It was held that provisions of section 2(22)(e) would apply to a company which had taken loan
Court 203 ITR 11 (Bombay)/[1993] 114 CTR 185 from its subsidiary
(Bombay)
14 2(22)(e) Excess withdrawals, CIT Vs Miss P. Sarada Madras High Court 1984 1984-LL-0703 [1985] 21 Taxman 94 (Madras)/[1985] 154 In this case, amount of impugned excess withdrawals were adjusted against credit balance
though repaid bofore ITR 387 (Madras)/[1985] 46 CTR 328 before close of year. It was held that it was assessable as deemed dividend in assessee's
year end (Madras) hands in terms of section 2(22)(e)

15 2(22)(e) Excess withdrawals, Miss P. Sarada Vs CIT Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-1209 [1998] 96 Taxman 11 (SC)/[1998] 229 ITR In this case, advances were made by company to the assessee. It was held that it would have
though repaid bofore 444 (SC)/[1998] 144 CTR 209 (SC) to be treated as deemed dividends paid on dates when withdrawals were allowed to be made
year end and subsequent adjustment of account made on very last day of accounting year would not
alter position that assessee received notional dividends on various dates
16 2(22)(e) Amount received as CIT v Sunil Chopra Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0511-70 [2011] 12 taxmann.com 496 (Delhi)/[2011] ITAT deleted addition accepting assessee's contention that said advances were received
advance against sale 201 Taxman 316 (Delhi)/[2011] 242 CTR against sale of property under terms of agreement dated 18-9-2003 and, therefore, money was
of property 498 (Delhi) taken by assessee in line of his business of real estate. High Court held that there was great
perversity and infirmity in findings and observations of Tribunal and, therefore, impugned order
was to be set aside
 2

17 2(22)(e) Real intent important CIT Vs Prasidh Leasing Ltd. Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0220-46 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2018] In this case, 'G' advanced certain sums to assessee to procure import licenses. However, real
when sum advanced 254 Taxman 142 (Delhi)/[2018] 403 ITR intent of 'G' in advancing sums was to share its profit. It was held that sums so advanced
129 (Delhi)/[2018] 301 CTR 526 (Delhi) clearly fell within description of 'deemed dividend' under section 2(22)(e). Where guarantee
commission fee had not been made for purpose of business, disallowance of guarantee
commission was justified
18 2(22)(e) Buyback of shares Fidelity Business Services India Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0723-58 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 253 The assessee bought-back shares from its holding company at Mauritius at an abnormally high
(P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 257 Taxman 266 price. High Court held that ITATwas perfectly justified in directing an enquiry into fair market
(Karnataka) value of shares of assessee-company which could have an implication of taxability under
section 2(22)(e)
19 2(22)(e) Loan from company Lailabi Khalid Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0611-62 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessing officer made addition of deemed dividend in respect of loan taken by assessee
408 ITR 385 (Kerala) from company in which she was a shareholder. It was held that in view of fact that as per
annual returns filed before Registrar of companies, assessee was holding more than ten per
cent equity shares in lender company, impugned addition was to be confirmed

20 2(22)(e) Loan by lender Shri Sahir Sami Khatib Vs ITO Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1003-46 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 453 The assessee was holding more than 10 per cent of equity shares of lending company and also
company to borrower Court (Bombay)/[2018] 259 Taxman 160 having substantial interest in borrowing company. It was held that amount of loan given by
company (Bombay) lender company to borrower company was rightly added to assessee's taxable income as
deemed dividend
21 2(22)(e) sale of flat to Bhagavathy Velan Vs DCIT Madras High Court 2019 2019-LL-0402-63 [2019] 106 taxmann.com 67 (Madras) High Court held that where a company, in which assessee had substantial shareholding, sold a
shareholder flat to assessee of which a major portion of price remained unpaid by him at end of previous
year, authorities below were justified in treating said amount as deemed dividend under section
2(22)(e)
22 2(24) Subsidy CIT Vs Bhushan Steels & Strips Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0713-14 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 204 (Delhi)/[2017] It was held that amount received by assessee running a manufacturing unit in a specified
Ltd 398 ITR 216 (Delhi)/[2017] 299 CTR 474 backward area by way of exemption of sales tax payments under the UP state subsidy scheme
(Delhi) is a taxable revenue receipt. Under the UP State subsidy scheme, the assessee was allowed to
retain the sales tax amounts collected from customers/service users, subject to the quantitative
limit of 100% of capital expenditure. The assessee had the flexibility of using the amounts
retained for any purpose, not necessarily capital. The object of providing subsidy by way of
permission to not deposit amounts collected as sales tax liability undoubtedly was to achieve
the larger goal of industrialization. The quantitative limit indicated therein was only a reference
point
23 2(24) Subsidy CIT Vs Rassi Cements Ltd. Andhra Pradesh 2012 2012-LL-0106-4 [2013] 33 taxmann.com 470 (Andhra In this case, power subsidy was given on actual power consumption and same had nothing to
High Court Pradesh)/[2013] 215 Taxman 144 (Andhra do with investment subsidy given for establishment of industries or expanding industries in
Pradesh)(MAG.)/[2013] 351 ITR 169 backward areas. It was held that amount of power subsidy/rebate was certainly a trading
(Andhra Pradesh) receipt and not a capital receipt
24 2(24) Subsidy Sahney Steel & Press Works Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-0919-2 [1997] 94 Taxman 368 (SC)/[1997] 228 ITR According to a notification issued by Government of Andhra Pradesh, certain facilities and
Ltd. Vs CIT 253 (SC)/[1997] 142 CTR 261 (SC) incentives were to be given to new industrial undertakings which commenced production on or
after 1-1-1969 with investment capital not exceeding 5 crores for five years from date of
commencement. Production incentives were not available unless and until production had
commenced.In terms of said notification assessee received refund of sales tax. Supreme Court
held that refund of sales tax was a revenue receipt
25 2(24) Diversion of funds CIT v. Nagarbail Salt-Owners Karnatka High 2016 2016-LL-0226-99 [2016] 68 taxmann.com 149 It was held that assessee-society, which ran a business enterprise in its own name was duty
Co-operative Society Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2016] 238 Taxman 689 bound to offer its profits to tax before diverting any funds to Distributable Pool Fund Account for
(Karnataka)/[2016] 290 CTR 211 distribution to its members
(Karnataka)
26 2(24) 56 Benefits or Emil Webber Vs CIT Bombay High 1978 1978-LL-0615-1 [1978] 114 ITR 515 (Bombay) It was held that perquisites not falling under 'business' or 'salary' can be taxed under head
perquisites Court 'Income from other sources'. Merely because the inclusive definition of 'income ' to be found in
section 2(24) provides only for the two heads of income, viz., 'Salaries' dealt with in section 17
and 'Profits and gains of business or profession' dealt with in section 28, it would not follow that
the benefits or perquisites which are not covered by these two heads of income would not be
assessable if they can be fairly regarded as income of the assessee.

27 2(24) 56 Benefits or Emil Webber Vs CIT Supreme Court 1993 1978-LL-0615-1 [1993] 67 Taxman 532 (SC)/[1993] 200 ITR It was held that perquisites not falling under 'business' or 'salary' can be taxed under head
perquisites 483 (SC)/[1993] 110 CTR 257 (SC) 'Income from other sources'. Merely because the inclusive definition of 'income ' to be found in
section 2(24) provides only for the two heads of income, viz., 'Salaries' dealt with in section 17
and 'Profits and gains of business or profession' dealt with in section 28, it would not follow that
the benefits or perquisites which are not covered by these two heads of income would not be
assessable if they can be fairly regarded as income of the assessee.

28 2(24)(iv) interest not charged CIT Vs Gurdial Singh Delhi High Court 1997 1997-LL-1203-4 [1998] 100 Taxman 507 (Delhi) The company did not charge interest from its two directors on debit balances standing in their
names. It was held that directors having derived benefit of interest from company were
assessable on said interest income under section 2(24)(iv)
 3

29 2(24)(iv) interest not charged CIT Vs Tara Singh Delhi High Court 1997 1997-LL-1202-6 [1998] 233 ITR 669 (Delhi)/[1999] 152 CTR The assessee was director of a company. There stood certain debit balance in books of
111 (Delhi) company against assessee. ITO formed an opinion that assessee should be deemed to have
derived benefit from company assessable to tax within meaning of section 2(24)(iv) and value
of such benefit was added income of assessee. ITAT deleted said addition. Delhi High Court
held that Tribunal was not correct in holding that no income within meaning of section 2(24)(iv)
was assessable in hands of assessee
30 2(24)(iv) Expenses of journey Sudha Burman Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2007 2007-LL-0214-5 [2007] 160 Taxman 148 (Delhi)/[2008] 296 The wife of managing director of company travelled with the managing director to foreign
of wife ITR 96 (Delhi)/[2007] 209 CTR 278 (Delhi) countries. Her expenses were borne by the company. There was no evidence that travel was
for business purposes of the company. It was held that the amount spent by the company on
travel of wife of the managing director was assessable as income of the wife of the managing
director.
31 2(24)(iv) Buses purchased CIT Vs S Varadarajan Madras High Court 1996 1996-LL-0305-4 [1996] 89 Taxman 457 (Madras)/[1997] 224 The Assessees were directors and having substantial interest in a transport company. They
below market value ITR 9 (Madras)/[1997] 141 CTR 10 purchased certain buses from that company at their written down value which was much lower
(Madras) than their market value.High Court held that even if benefit received by director of company is
of capital in nature, it can be brought under term 'value of any benefit' as contemplated under
section 2(24)(iv). The difference between written down value of buses and their fair market
value determined by department, could be treated as benefit to assessees under section
2(24)(iv).
32 2(24)(iv) interest not charged Addl.CIT Vs Late A.K. Lakshmi Madras High Court 1977 1977-LL-1024 [1978] 113 ITR 368 (Madras) The assessee was a shareholder and director of company. No interest was charged by
company on overdrawings by assessee whereas company was paying interest on its
borrowings. High Court held that interest chargeable to overdrawings by assessee was benefit
that had been accrued to assessee without cost attracting definition of ‘perquisite’ under section
17(2) and falling under section 17(2)(iii)(a)
33 4 HUF property Adiveppa Vs Bhimappa Supreme Court 2017 Other Acts [2017] 85 taxmann.com 170 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that burden of proof lies upon member of Hindu Undivided Family to show
250 Taxman 476 (SC)/[2018] 300 CTR 124 that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property
(SC)
34 4 Interest on refund of Dy.CITv. Wipro Ltd. Karnatka High 2016 2015-LL-0325-59 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 26 It was held that interest on unutilised Modvat credit refund is liable to tax
unutilised Modvat Court (Karnataka)/[2016] 236 Taxman 209
credit (Karnataka)/[2016] 382 ITR 179
(Karnataka)/[2016] 282 CTR 346
(Karnataka)
35 4 Compensation for Avantor Performance Materials HP High Court 2016 2016-LL-0104-8 [2016] 66 taxmann.com 183 (Himachal It was held that compensation received in connection with termination of share purchase
termination of share India Ltd. v. CIT Pradesh)/[2016] 237 Taxman 603 agreement was taxable as revenue receipt
purchase agreement (Himachal Pradesh)/[2016] 383 ITR 685
(Himachal Pradesh)/[2016] 282 CTR 494
(Himachal Pradesh)
36 4 sale of HUF property Janak Kanakbhai Trivedi Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0716-77 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 278 The assessee did not disclose capital gain arising from sale of a property in his return of
ITO (Gujarat)/[2018] 257 Taxman 367 (Gujarat) income on ground that said property belonged to HUF. In view of fact that assessee had
executed sale deed of property in his individual capacity and, moreover, sale consideration had
not been deposited in bank account of HUF, assessee's plea was rejected and amount in
question was to be added to his taxable income
37 4 no- Bangalore Club Vs CIT Supreme Court 2013 2013-LL-0114-28 [2013] 29 taxmann.com 29 (SC)/[2013] 212 It was held that interest earned by assessee-club on fixed deposits from its member banks
Taxman 566 (SC)/[2013] 350 ITR 509 would not be exempt from tax on basis of doctrine of mutuality
(SC)/[2013] 255 CTR 465 (SC)
38 4 Principle of mutuality MADRAS CRICKET CLUB VS Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1026-59 2018-TIOL-2450-HC-MAD-IT It was held that principle of mutuality will not be applicable to interest income from FRDs earned
ITO by a club from out of surplus funds kept with bank, which were raised from contribution of
several members of the club
39 5 interest on interim Smt. Premlata Purshottam Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0801-25 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 317 During pendency of dispute over enhanced compensation, payment of interim compensation
compensation Paldiwal Vs CIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 406 ITR 254 (Bombay) was received and deposited in fixed deposit. It was held that interest thereon would be taxed as
accrued in current year; same could not be deferred till final determination by High Court

40 5 interest on accrual PCIT Vs Plantation Corporation Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-1220-8 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 128 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessee was following mercantile system of accounting. It was held that interest accrued
basis of Kerala Ltd. 400 ITR 577 (Kerala)/[2018] 300 CTR 260 to it on fixed deposits was to be brought to tax in relevant year itself even though maturity
(Kerala) period or expiry date did not fall in assessment year in question
41 9 supply of equipments Elkem Technology Vs DCIT AP High Court 2001 2001-LL-0412-3 [2001] 117 Taxman 382 (Andhra The assessee, a non-resident company, based in Norway, entered into a conract with an Indian
as well as Pradesh)/[2001] 250 ITR 164 (Andhra company for supply of equipments as well as engineering data besides personnel services for
engineering data Pradesh)/[2001] 169 CTR 49 (Andhra establishing a sub-merged arc furnace. It was held that payment in question was to be treated
besides personnel Pradesh) as part and parcel of process of utilising technical services in India and would fall for coverage
services within meaning of section 9(1)(vii)
42 9 salary during training Reading & Bates Drilling Co. Vs Uttarakhand High 2005 2005-LL-0714-3 [2005] 147 Taxman 499 It was held that since training abroad to assessee to keep him fit during off-period was directly
abroad CIT Court (UTTARANCHAL)/[2005] 277 ITR 253 connected with work on rigs in India as it made assessee mentally and physically fit, payment of
(UTTARANCHAL)/[2005] 199 CTR 66 salary for off-period was income earned in India, i.e., for services rendered in India under
(UTTARANCHAL) section 9(1)(ii)
 4

43 9 195 right to use software CIT Vs Synopsis International 2009 2009-LL-1202-25 2009 taxmann.com 1030 (Karnataka) The assessee had purchased a right to use software from a foreign company It was held that
Old Ltd. assessee was liable to deduct TDS in respect of payments made for purchase of software as
same was income liable to tax in India as royalty or scientific work under section 9

44 9 Explanation transfer of exclusive CIT Vs Synopsis International Karnataka High 2011 2010-LL-0803-26 [2012] 28 taxmann.com 162 It was held that it is not necessary that there should be a transfer of exclusive right in copyright.
(2) of right Old Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2013] 212 Taxman 454 Where consideration paid was for rights in respect of copyright and for user of confidential
section (Karnataka) information embedded in software/computer programme, it would fall within mischief of
9(1)(vi) Explanation (2) of section 9(1)(vi) and there would be a liability to pay tax
45 9 Liaison office Jebon Corporation India Vs CIT Karnataka High 2011 2011-LL-0208 [2012] 19 taxmann.com 119 It was held that liaison office of Korean company performing functions such as identifying new
Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 206 Taxman 7 customers, pursuit and follow-up of customer, price negotiation, etc., would be treated as
(Karnataka)/[2011] 245 CTR 300 permanent establishment of Korean company as defined under article 5 of India-Korea Tax
(Karnataka) Treaty
46 9 195 licence to use of CIT Vs Samsung Electronics Karnataka High 2011 2011-LL-1015 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 141 It was held that when licence is granted to make use of software by making copy of same and
software Co. Ltd Court (Karnataka)/[2011] 203 Taxman 477 store it in hard disk of designated computer and to take back-up copy of software, what is
(Karnataka)/[2012] 345 ITR 494 transferred is only right to use copy of software for internal business as per terms and
(Karnataka)/[2011] 245 CTR 481 conditions of agreement and payment made in that regard would constitute royalty as per
(Karnataka) section 9(1)(vi), read with article 12 of DTAA between India and USA

47 9 licence to use CIT Vs Infosys Technologies Karnataka High 2011 2011-LL-1015-1 [2012] 17 taxmann.com 115 It was held that payment made by assessee to a non-resident in order to obtain licence to use
database Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 204 Taxman 311 database maintained by it, is to be regarded as royalty
(Karnataka)
48 9 software and CIT Vs Sunray Computers (P.) Karnataka High 2011 2011-LL-1021-8 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 268 In this case, assessee having purchased software and hardware from two different non-
hardware purchase Ltd Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 204 Taxman 1 resident companies and integrated them for manufacture and supply of telecommunication
from two different (Karnataka)/[2012] 348 ITR 196 equipments. It was held that in view of fact that assessee's transaction for purchase of software
non-resident (Karnataka) was an independent transaction, payment made for it amounted to royalty under section 9(1)(vi)
companies
49 9 transfer of right to Atlas Copco AB of Sweden Vs Bombay High 2012 2012-LL-0109 [2012] 18 taxmann.com 159 It was held that the amount received by a Swedish company from an Indian company on
use know-how CIT Court (Bombay)/[2012] 205 Taxman 5 account of transfer of right to use know-how for a specified period amounted to 'royalty' and,
(Bombay)/[2012] 249 CTR 450 (Bombay) thus, liable to tax in India

50 9 transfer of right to CIT Vs Rational Software Karnataka High 2012 2012-LL-0301-44 [2012] 22 taxmann.com 9 It was held that consideration paid by Indian customers or end-users to foreign supplier for
use Corpn. (India) Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 207 Taxman 109 transfer of right to use software/computer programme in respect of copyrights would fall within
software/computer (Karnataka)(Mag.) mischief of royalty
programme
51 9 transfer of right to DIT Vs Sonata Information Karnataka High 2012 2012-LL-0320-74 [2012] 21 taxmann.com 501 It was held that consideration paid by Indian customers or end users to assessee-foreign
use Technology Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 207 Taxman 108 supplier, for transfer of right to use software/computer programme in respect of copyrights falls
software/computer (Karnataka)(Mag.) within mischief of 'royalty'
programme
52 9 transfer of right to CIT Vs Ansys Software (P.) Ltd Karnataka High 2012 2012-LL-0320-73 [2012] 23 taxmann.com 344 It was held that consideration paid for transfer of right to use software in respect of copyright is
use software Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 208 Taxman 254 'royalty'
(Karnataka)(Mag.)
53 9 purchase of software CIT Vs P.S.I. Data System Ltd. Karnataka High 2012 2012-LL-0606-3 [2012] 23 taxmann.com 432 It was held that payment made by assessee to non-resident for purchase of software is royalty
Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 208 Taxman 452
(Karnataka)
54 9 purchase of software CIT Vs ING Vysya Life Karnataka High 2012 2012-LL-0606-99 [2012] 24 taxmann.com 226 It was held that payment made by assessee to non-resident for purchase of software is royalty
Insurance Co. (P.) Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2012] 209 Taxman 58
(Karnataka)(Mag.)
55 9 capital gains on Cartier Shipping Co. Ltd Vs DIT Bombay High 2012 2012-LL-0620-89 [2013] 33 taxmann.com 676 It was held that the assessee, a company of Mauritius with Indian PE, would be liable to pay
company of Mauritius Court (Bombay)/[2012] 251 CTR 1 (Bombay) capital gains tax on sale of rig owned by its Indian PE
with Indian PE

56 9 technicians deputed Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2012 2012-LL-0914-296 [2012] 26 taxmann.com 267 In this case, technical services are rendered by an enterprise to another even though same
for carrying out work CIT Court (Bombay)/[2012] 211 Taxman 171 required technicians to be deputed for carrying out work. It was held that it will constitute
(Bombay)/[2012] 253 CTR 529 (Bombay) rendering of technical services

57 9 147 Indian subsidiary was Convergys Customer Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-1212-4 [2012] 28 taxmann.com 128 (Delhi)/[2013] Upheld initiation of proceeding for assessment of a foreign parent company on basis of prima
its permanent Management Vs ADIT 212 Taxman 613 (Delhi)/[2013] 357 ITR facie material to suggest that Indian subsidiary was its permanent establishment
establishment 177 (Delhi)/[2013] 255 CTR 482 (Delhi)
 5

58 9 ship regarded as Poompuhar Shipping Madras High Court 2013 2013-LL-1009-68 [2013] 38 taxmann.com 150 The assessee was engaged in business of moving coal from various ports in India to State
equipment of Corporation Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras)/[2014] 220 Taxman 58 Electricity Board, Chennai, hired ships from various non-resident companies for transportation
business (Madras)/[2014] 360 ITR 257 of coal. It was held that payments of hire charges made to said companies under time charter
(Madras)/[2013] 263 CTR 377 (Madras) agreement amounted to royalty falling under clause (iva) of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi)
and, thus, assessee was liable to deduct tax at source while making said payments.
'Equipment', in whatever name called either as an apparatus or as plant or machinery, so long
as they are employed for purposes of one's income, same shall stand covered by clause (iva)
of Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi).
59 9 bandwidth payments Verizon Communications Madras High Court 2013 2013-LL-1107-24 [2013] 39 taxmann.com 70 (Madras)/[2014] It was held that in view of retrospective amendments made to the definition of 'royalty' in section
Singapore Pte Ltd. Vs ITO 224 Taxman 237 (Madras)(Mag.)/[2014] 9(1)(vi) by the Finance Act, 2012 by inserting Explanations 4 and 5 with effect from 1-6-1976,
361 ITR 575 (Madras)/[2013] 263 CTR 497 bandwidth payments made by Indian customers to assessee, a singapore based company for
(Madras) International Private Leased Circuit (IPLC) for providing end-to-end internet connectivity outside
India (where connectivity for Indian leg was provided by VSNL due to Indian regulatory
requirement), was taxable as 'royalty' under section 9(1)(vi) as well as under article 12(3) of
India-Singapore DTAA
60 9 transfer of right to CIT Vs Customer Asset India Karnataka High 2013 2013-LL-1112-28 [2014] 42 taxmann.com 338 It was held that consideration paid by Indian customers or end users to assessee, a foreign
use (P.) Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2014] 222 Taxman 37 company, for transfer of right to use software/computer programme in respect of copyright falls
software/computer (Karnataka)(Mag.) within mischief of 'royalty' as defined under sub-clause (v) to Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of
programme section 9(1)
61 9 recipient of interest DIT Vs Pride Foramer SAS Uttarakhand High 2013 2013-LL-1204-29 [2013] 40 taxmann.com 100 It was held that provisions of sub-articles (1) and (2) of article 12 of India-France DTAA would
Court (Uttarakhand)/[2014] 221 Taxman 305 apply when recipient of interest does not have a permanent establishment in country, where he
(Uttarakhand)/[2014] 268 CTR 467 has received interest
(Uttarakhand)
62 9 technical knowledge Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0425-111 [2014] 44 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi)/[2014] In terms of 'secondment agreement' entered into by assessee with overseas companies,
and skills Vs CIT 224 Taxman 122 (Delhi)/[2014] 364 ITR employees of those companies used their technical knowledge and skills while assisting
336 (Delhi)/[2014] 270 CTR 1 (Delhi) assessee in conducting its business of quality control and management. It was held that
amounts reimbursed by assessee to overseas companies towards salaries of seconded
employees amounted to 'fee for technical services' liable to tax in India

63 9 licence to use CIT Vs CGI Information Karnataka High 2014 2014-LL-0609-64 [2014] 48 taxmann.com 264 The assessee was engaged in rendering information technology solutions to companies within
intranet facilities Systems & Management Court (Karnataka)/[2014] 226 Taxman 319 CGI group and other global customers. It entered into an agreement with CGI Inc., a Canada
Consultants (P.) Ltd (Karnataka)/[2015] 275 CTR 72 (Karnataka) based company, in terms of which assessee acquired a licence to use intranet facilities
provided by non-resident company. It was held that payment made for utilising said facilities
amounted to 'royalty' taxable in India
64 9 147 note filed with returns B.S. Shantharaju Vs CIT Karnataka High 2014 2014-LL-0722-21 [2014] 48 taxmann.com 375 In terms of article 14 of Indo-UK DTAA, assessee was a resident of India and he had to pay
Court (Karnataka)/[2014] 227 Taxman 51 capital gains in terms of domestic law of this country. It was held that if he did not pay same
(Karnataka)(Mag.)/[2015] 370 ITR 617 and merely gave a note along with returns, to which Assessing Officer had not applied his mind,
(Karnataka) reassessment was justified
65 9 no severality of sale Shakti LPG Ltd. Vs ITO AP High Court 2014 2014-LL-0917-80 [2015] 54 taxmann.com 18 (Andhra It was held that payment made to US firm for installation of machinery would be liable to
and installation Pradesh)/[2015] 229 Taxman 164 (Andhra deduction of tax at source there being no severality of sale and installation components and
components Pradesh)/[2014] 369 ITR 167 (Andhra payee being not covered by section 195(1)
Pradesh)
66 9 40(a)(i) cost of software CIT Vs Rational Software Karnataka High 2015 2015-LL-0105-34 [2015] 55 taxmann.com 288 In this case, remittances towards cost of software products imported from foreign suppliers was
products is royalty Corpn. India (P.) Ltd Court (Karnataka)/[2015] 230 Taxman 68 held as royalty, hence liable to TDS
(Karnataka)
67 9 technical knowledge Centrica India Offshore (P.) Ltd. Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-1010-92 [2014] 51 taxmann.com 386 (SC)/[2014] In terms of 'secondment agreement' entered into by assessee with overseas companies,
and skills Vs CIT 227 Taxman 368 (SC) employees of those companies used their technical knowledge and skills while assisting
assessee in conducting its business of quality control and management. It was held that
amounts reimbursed by assessee to overseas companies towards salaries of seconded
employees amounted to 'fee for technical services' liable to tax in India

68 9 lump-sum payment HCL Ltd. Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0203-2 [2015] 54 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi)/[2015] In this case, agreement granted permission to use or right to use intellectual property rights or
held be 'royalty' 372 ITR 441 (Delhi)/[2015] 276 CTR 416 know-how for five years for a lump-sum payment with a confidentiality obligation that would
(Delhi) subsist and be applicable even subsequently. It was held that mere condition of non-payment
after five years would not make it a case of outright sale; lump-sum payment would be 'royalty'

69 9 consultancy services GVK Industries Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2015 2015-LL-0218 [2015] 54 taxmann.com 347 (SC)/[2015] In order to set up a power project, assessee-company availed of consultancy services of a
231 Taxman 18 (SC)/[2015] 371 ITR 453 Switzerland based company for raising required finance from international organisations on
(SC)/[2015] 275 CTR 121 (SC) most competitive terms. It was held that payment made to swiss company for rendering such
consultancy services amounted to 'fee for technical service' liable to tax in India
 6

70 9 147 existence of PE in Adobe Systems Software Supreme Court 2015 Not Available [2015] 56 taxmann.com 51 (SC)/[2015] 230 SLP was dismissed against order of High Court where it was held that even if existence of PE
dispute Ireland Ltd. Vs DDIT Taxman 360 (SC) of petitioner non-resident company within jurisdiction of Assessing Officer was in dispute, if
petitioner had not made aware Assessing Officer that no income chargeable to tax had
escaped assessment and had merely told him that he had no jurisdiction to issue reassessment
notices, it did not act strictly in accordance with law
71 9 payment for CIT Vs Synopsys International Karnataka High 2010 2010-LL-0803-26 [2012] 28 taxmann.com 162 It is not necessary that there should be a transfer of exclusive right in copyright. In this case
copyright and for use Ltd. Court (Karnataka)/[2013] 212 Taxman 454 consideration paid was for rights in respect of copyright and for user of confidential information
of confidential (Karnataka) embedded in software/computer programme. It was held that it would fall within mischief of
information Explanation (2) of section 9(1)(vi) and there would be a liability to pay tax

72 9 147 existence of PE of its L.G. Electronics (P.) Ltd. Vs Allahabad High 2015 2015-LL-0422-4 [2015] 57 taxmann.com 178 Reopening of assessment was upheld in this case where at time of making assessment,
parent company ACIT Court (Allahabad)/[2015] 231 Taxman 326 assessee did not disclose about existence of PE of its parent company in India. As a result,
(Allahabad)/[2015] 376 ITR 281 (Allahabad) Assessing Officer could not examine as to whether tax was deductible at source while making
remittances to parent company located abroad, it was to be regarded as a valid ground for

73 9 interest on tax refund B. J. Services Co. Middle East Uttarakhand High 2015 2015-LL-0519-4 [2015] 60 taxmann.com 246 The assessee was carrying on business through a permanent establishment in India. It was
Ltd. Vs ACIT Court (Uttarakhand)/[2015] 234 Taxman 604 held that interest on tax refund is taxable as business income under clause 6 of article 12 of
(Uttarakhand)/[2016] 380 ITR 138 Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty between India and UK. Section 44BB dealing with business
(Uttarakhand)/[2016] 288 CTR 214 of extraction of mineral oil in India is not applicable to interest on tax refund
(Uttarakhand)
74 9 195 assessee had full Formula One World Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0424-6 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 347 (SC)/[2017] The assessee, a UK based company, granted to Jaypee Sports, right to host and promote
access to Formula F- Championship Ltd. Vs CIT 248 Taxman 192 (SC)/[2017] 394 ITR 80 Formula F-1 Race at motor racing circuit owned by Jaypee and assessee had full access to
1 Race circuit (SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 12 (SC) circuit and it could dictate as to who was authorized to access circuit and organising any other
event on circuit was not permitted. Supreme Court upheld High Court's conclusion that the said
circuit constituted PE of assessee in India
75 9 145 forex fluctuation gain Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Vs CIT Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0801-24 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 61 (Bombay)/[2017] The assessee had claimed royalty and interest income as exempt as per DTAA on accrual
or loss Court 398 ITR 134 (Bombay)/[2018] 301 CTR 106 basis in earlier years. It was held that forex fluctuation gain or loss arising on receipt of such
(Bombay) income in subsequent period could not also be considered as exempt; such gain could not be
considered as a part of royalty and it should be taxed
76 9 195A multiple arbitration Union of India Vs Vodafone Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0822-45 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi)/[2017] It was held that multiple foreign corporate entities of same group cannot bring multiple
proceedings Group PLC United Kingdom 250 Taxman 217 (Delhi) arbitration proceedings under multiple investment protection treaties against a host State in
relation to same investment, same economic harm and same measures especially when reliefs
sought are same
77 9 44BB & 147 assessee providing Tidewater Marine International Uttarakhand High 2018 2017-LL-1117-11 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 43 (Uttarakhand) The Assessing Officer passed assessment order accepting assessee's stand that it was
support vessels used Inc. Vs DDIT Court providing facilities and services in connection with exploration and extraction of mineral oils
for logistic purposes and, thus, its case would be governed by section 44BB. In view of subsequent finding that
assessee was providing support vessels which were used for logistic purposes and, thus, it was
held that its case was completely different from cases covered under section 44BB AO was
justified in initiating reassessment proceedings
78 9 195A grossin up of FTS TVS Motor Co. Ltd. Vs ITO Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0824-86 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 567 The assessee had entered into an agreement with UK based university for providing certain
(Madras)/[2018] 258 Taxman 77 (Madras) technical services for which it had agreed to bear Indian taxes. It was held that assessee was
required to gross-up amount of fees for technical services (FTS) paid to university, for purpose
of deducting TDS under India-UK DTAA
79 9 160 representative DIT Vs Board of Control for Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0925-36 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 600 It was held that representative assessee of foreign resident not only represents an income
assessee Cricket in Sri Lanka Court (Calcutta)/[2018] 259 Taxman 6 (Calcutta) which has directly arisen or accrued in India but also that which has indirectly arisen or accrued
in this country, through a business connection
80 9 147 L.O.carrying core GE Energy Parts Inc. Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1221-65 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 142 (Delhi)/[2019] In this case, L.O. of U. S. Company established to act as communication channel, was carrying
activity 411 ITR 243 (Delhi) core activity of marketing and selling highly sophisticated equipments to US company. It was
held that L.O. was fixed place P.E. of assessee company in India
81 9 44BB mobilisation fee Sedco Forex International INC Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1030-4 [2017] 87 taxmann.com 29 (SC)/[2017] 251 The assessee, foreign company, had entered into contracts with (ONGC) for giving hire of their
Vs CIT Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 rig for carrying out oil exploration activities in India. It was held that mobilisation fee received by
(SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) assessee was to be included for computation of deemed profits and gains of business,
chargeable to tax under section 44BB
82 9 44BB mobilisation fee Sedco Forex International INC Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0510-57 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 119 (SC)/[2018] The assessee, foreign company, had entered into contracts with (ONGC) for giving on hire their
Vs CIT 256 Taxman 65 (SC) rigs for carrying out oil exploration activities in India. It was held that mobilisation fee received
by assessee was to be included for computation of deemed profits and gains of business,
chargeable to tax under section 44BB. Review petition against said decision dismissed

83 10(1) agricultural income, CIT Vs Raja Benoy Kumar Supreme Court 1957 1957-LL-0523-3 [1957] 32 ITR 466 (SC) It was held that products which grow wild on land or are of spontaneous growth not involving
spontaneous growth Sahas Roy any human labour or skill upon land are not products of agriculture and income derived
therefrom is not agricultural income even though certain subsequent operations like collecting
and marketing said products are performed by assessee
 7

84 10(1) agricultural income, Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Supreme Court 1957 1957-LL-0523-2 [1957] 32 ITR 587 (SC) In regard to forest trees of spontaneous growth, which grow on soil unaided by any human skill
spontaneous growth Singh Vs CIT and labour and where no basic operations in agriculture are performed upon soil itself by
assessee, there is no cultivation of soil at all. It was held that income from such forest trees
cannot constitute agricultural income
85 10(1) agricultural income CIT Vs Jyotikona Chowdhurani Supreme Court 1957 1957-LL-0523 [1957] 32 ITR 705 (SC) Since trees were of spontaneous growth and nothing was done by assessee to grow trees from
soil itself, income derived by assessee from sale of said trees could not be said to be
agricultural income under section 2(1). Thus, it was not exempt from taxation under section
4(3)(viii) of 1922 Act
86 10(1) agricultural income CIT Vs Ramakrishna Deo Supreme Court 1958 1958-LL-1014 [1959] 35 ITR 312 (SC) In order to decide whether income received by assessee by sale of trees in his forests was
agricultural income or not, crucial question to be answered is, were those trees planted by
proprietors of estate, or did they grow spontaneously. It is essentially a question of fact. Burden
is on assessee to prove that income sought to be taxed is agricultural income, exempt from
taxation under section 4(3)(viii) of 1922 Act
87 10(1) agricultural income, Bhairavnath Agrofin (P.) Ltd. Vs Rajasthan High 2013 Not Available [2013] 40 taxmann.com 241 The assessee failed to explain source of agricultural income claimed to have been earned by it.
failed to explain CIT Court (Rajasthan)/[2014] 220 Taxman 1 It was held that no exemption could be allowed in respect of such income
source (Rajasthan)(MAG.)/[2013] 354 ITR 276
(Rajasthan)/[2013] 259 CTR 51 (Rajasthan)

88 10(1) agricultural income, H.H. Maharaja Vibhuti Narain Allahabad High 1967 1966-LL-1010-2 [1967] 65 ITR 364 (Allahabad) Income from nursery does not constitute agricultural income
income from nursery Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh Court

89 10(10) gratuity and leave Harbans Singh v. CIT P&H High Court 2016 2015-LL-1202-11 [2016] 65 taxmann.com 235 (Punjab & It was held that computation of benefit of gratuity and leave encashment under sections 10(10)
encashment Haryana)/[2016] 237 Taxman 596 (Punjab and 10(10AA) respectively are to be governed by definition of 'salary' as per Rule 2(h) Part A,
& Haryana)/[2016] 382 ITR 600 (Punjab & Fourth Schedule and no other payment or allowance other than dearness allowance if the
Haryana) terms of employment so permit, shall be taken into consideration

90 10(20) not a Municipality New Okhla Industrial Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0702-4 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 58 (SC)/[2018] 256 It was held that New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) is not a Municipality' as
Development Authority (NOIDA) Taxman 396 (SC)/[2019] 406 ITR 178 contemplated in clause (e) of article 243P of Constitution; nor is it covered by definition of local
Vs CCIT (SC)/[2018] 303 CTR 448 (SC) authority as contained in Explanation to section 10(20). Hence, it's income is not eligible for
exemption under section 10(20)
91 10(20) not a Municipal ITO Vs Urban Improvement Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1012-48 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 237 (SC)/[2018] It was held that Urban Improvement Trust constituted under Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act,
Committee Trust 259 Taxman 61 (SC)/[2018] 409 ITR 1 (SC) 1959 is not a Municipal Committee within meaning of clause (iii) of Explanation to section
10(20), hence not entitled to tax exemption under said provision
92 10(22A) reimbursement of CIT v. Apeejay Medical Calcua High Court 2016 2016-LL-0318-6 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 104 It was held that interest utilised to reimburse medical expenses of three companies in group
medical expenses Research and Welfare (Calcutta)/[2016] 239 Taxman 266 was not exempt
Association (P) Ltd. (Calcutta)/[2016] 383 ITR 79
(Calcutta)/[2016] 286 CTR 182 (Calcutta)

93 10(37) not carrying on any B. M. Maniraju v. CIT Karnatka High 2016 2015-LL-0721-35 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 345 The assessee was not carrying on any agricultural activity in land in question in preceding two
agricultural activity Court (Karnataka)/[2016] 282 CTR 108 years prior to its compulsory acquisition. It was held that appellant would not be entitled to
(Karnataka) benefit of section 10(37)
94 10A/ 10B unabsorbed Himatasingike Seide Ltd vs. CIT Supreme Court 2014 2013-LL-0919-45 [2014] 48 taxmann.com 357 (SC)/[2015] Supreme Court affirmed decision of Karnataka High Court that for purpose of exemption under
depreciation (Supreme Court) 228 Taxman 63 (SC)(MAG.)/[2014] 266 section 10B, unabsorbed depreciation should be adjusted against income of export unit only
CTR 141 (SC) and not against other income
95 10A stage of deduction CIT Vs Yokogawa India Ltd Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-1216-2 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 41 (SC)/[2017] 244 After amendment of section 10A by Finance Act 2000 with effect from 1-4-2001, said section
Taxman 273 (SC)/[2017] 391 ITR 274 has become a provision for dedution but stage of dedution would be while computing gross
(SC)/[2017] 291 CTR 1 (SC) total income of eligible undertaking under Chaper IV of Act and not at stage of computation of
total income under Chapter VI of Act
96 10B set off of loss CIT Vs KEI Industries Ltd. Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0313 [2015] 57 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi)/[2015] Loss was suffered by assessee in a unit entitled for exemption under section 10B. It was held
231 Taxman 697 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR that loss cannot be set off against income from any other unit not eligible for such exemption
574 (Delhi)
97 10(23C) surplus invested in CIT Vs Queens’ Educational Uttaranchal High 2007 2007-LL-0924-8 [2009] 177 Taxman 326 The assessee was an educational society imparting education to children. During relevant
fixed assets Society Court (UTTARANCHAL)/[2009] 319 ITR 160 assessment years, there was surplus in its account books after meeting all expenses incurred
(UTTARANCHAL)/[2009] 223 CTR 395 towards imparting education. It invested said surplus in fixed assets like furniture and buildings
(UTTARANCHAL) with a view to expand institution and to earn more income. It was held that assessee would not
be entitled to exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad)
98 11 12AA Meaning of term C.I.T. vs. Chhadani Lal Jain Allahabad 1972 1972-LL-0224 [1977] 106 ITR 179 (Allahabad) Before the benefit of section 11 (1) can be claimed the property must be held under trust, which
"property held under Trust implies that the trust in respect of the property must be complete. In other words all the
trust" formalities which are required under the law of creation of a trust in respect of the property must
be complied with
99 11 12AA Meaning of term Lall Choudhary vs. C.I.T; CIT Patna;SC 1956-LL-0224 ; AIR 1956 Pat. 314; AIR 1960 SC 1219. If merely the income and not the property, out of which the income arises, is held under a
"property held under vs. Thakur Das 1960-LL-0727 charitable or religious trust, no exemption shall be allowed u/s 11 in respect of such income
trust"
 8

100 11 12AA Meaning of term Lok Shikshana Trust SC 1975 1975-LL-0828 [1975] 101 ITR 234 (SC) The word “Education” connotes the process of training and developing the knowledge, skill,
"education" mind and character of students by normal schooling and has not been used in the wide and
extensive sense according to which every acquisition of further knowledge constitutes
education
101 11 12AA no exemption u/s 11 (U.P. Forest Corporation v. CIT SC 2007 2007-LL-1127-1 [2007] 165 Taxman 533 (SC)/[2008] 297 Registration under section 12AA is condition precedence to avail exemption under sections 11
without 12AA ITR 1 (SC)/[2007] 213 CTR 473 (SC) and 12. Unless and until an institution is registered under section 12A or 12AA, it cannot claim
the benefit of section 11(1) (a).
102 11(1)(a) Expenses incurred National Association Of Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1013-4 2017-TIOL-2202-HC-DEL-IT Expenses incurred outside India on 'Global Trade Development Programme', would be treated
outside India Software & Service Company as application of income u/s 11(1)(a)
Vs CIT
103 11(4A) surplus from Indian Machine Tools & Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0309-78 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 465 The assessee claimed exemption under section 11 in respect of surplus earned by it by
organising exhibition Manufacturers Association Vs Court (Bombay)/[2018] 254 Taxman 243 organising exhibition, which was a well-organized and regular activity incidental to assessee's
DIT (Bombay)/[2018] 302 CTR 289 (Bombay) business. Since the assessee had not maintained separate books of account in respect of said
activity, as mandated under section 11(4A), exemption under section 11 could not be granted

104 12A establishment ultra DIT Vs Guru Harkishan Medical Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0304-32 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 400 (Delhi)/[2014] The establishment of appellant trust/society was ultra vires power of parent trust as it was
vires power of parent Trust 223 Taxman 253 (Delhi)/[2014] 363 ITR beyond statutory mandate of Act by which parent trust was created. It was held that no
trust 186 (Delhi) registration could be granted to appellant trust
105 12AA 11 Capitation fee- no Modern Dental College And SC 2009 Other Acts CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4060 OF 2009 Every demand of capitation fee by educational institutions is unethical & illegal. It emphasized
charitable activity Research Centre Vs. State of that the commercialization and exploitation is not permissible in the education sector and
Madhya Pradesh institutions must run on 'no-profit-no-loss' basis.Though education is now treated as an
'occupation' and, thus, has become a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1) (g) of
the Constitution, at the same time shackles are put in so far as this particular occupation is
concerned, which is termed as noble. Therefore, profiteering and commercialization are not
permitted and no capitation fee can be charged. It is to be ensured that this admission process
meets the triple test of transparency, fairness and non-exploitation. The apex court observed
that We cannot lose sight of the fact that these things are happening in our country irrespective
of the constitutional pronouncements by this court in TMA Pai Foundation case that there shall
not be any profiteering or acceptance of capitation fee etc.

106 12AA 2(15) donations deposited Makhan Singh v. ITO P&H High Court 2016 2015-LL-0827-62 [2015] 64 taxmann.com 311 (Punjab & The assessee claiming himself to be a Sewadar of Historic Dera, deposited donations received
in trustee account Haryana)/[2016] 236 Taxman 364 (Punjab in name of Dera in his own bank account. Moreover, he failed to prove that any charitable
& Haryana) activity in terms of section 2(15) was ever carried out by him. It was held that authorities below
were justified in making addition to his income under section 68 in respect of donations in
question
107 12AA nocharitable work Self Employers Service Society Kerala High Court 2000 2000-LL-0906-1 [2000] 113 Taxman 703 (Kerala)/[2001] 247 The petitioner-society had not done any charitable work during relevant period and its activities
Vs CIT ITR 18 (Kerala)/[2000] 164 CTR 449 were only for purpose of generating income for its members. It was held that rejection of
(Kerala) application could hardly be termed as illegal or arbitrary
108 12AA 2(15) charitable purpose' CIT Vs National Institute of Uttarakhand High 2009 2009-LL-0715-5 [2009] 184 Taxman 264 In expression 'charitable purpose', 'charity' is soul of expression. Mere trade or commerce in
Aeronautical Engg. Educational Court (UTTARANCHAL)/[2009] 315 ITR 428 name of education cannot be said to be a charitable purpose
Society (UTTARANCHAL)/[2009] 226 CTR 582
(UTTARANCHAL)
109 12AA telecasting CIT Vs A.Y. Broadcast Kerala High Court 2011 2011-LL-0322-29 [2012] 21 taxmann.com 533 (Kerala)/[2012] The assessee was formed for production of television and radio programmes for purpose of
and broadcasting Foundation 246 CTR 301 (Kerala) telecasting and broadcasting. It was held that such activities could not be held as charitable
activities purpose covered by section 2(15)
110 12AA 2(15) capitation fees Travancore Education Society Kerala High Court 2014 2014-LL-1027 [2016] 66 taxmann.com 362 (Kerala)/[2014] The assessee-trust collected capitation fees in addition to prescribed fees. It was held that
Vs CIT 369 ITR 534 (Kerala) object of assessee-trust could no more be said to be charitable in nature and, hence,
registration granted to it was to be rejected
111 12AA posh school run on Dawn Educational Charitable Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-1013-29 [2016] 73 taxmann.com 61 (SC)/[2016] 242 SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where assessee-trust was running posh school
commercial lines Trust Vs CIT Taxman 1 (SC) for children of non-resident Indians on commercial lines under guise of charitable purpose,
application made for registration under section 12A was to be rejected
112 12AA Development Jammu Development Authority Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0721-74 2014-TIOL-115-SC-IT Supreme Court concured with the opinion of High Court and dismissed the SLP holding that the
Authority not eligible Vs Union of India cancellation of registration of Jammu Development Authority u/s 12AA as sustainable

113 12AA non-disposal of CIT Vs Muzafar Nagar Allahabad High 2015 2015-LL-0205-5 [2015] 57 taxmann.com 8 High Court held that non-disposal of an application for registration within 6 months as fixed by
application in 6 Development Authority Court (Allahabad)/[2015] 231 Taxman 490 section 12AA(2) would not result in a deemed grant of registration
months (Allahabad)/[2015] 372 ITR 209
(Allahabad)/[2015] 275 CTR 233
(Allahabad)
 9

114 12AA ITAT has no CIT Vs A.R.Trust Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0904-14 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 6 High Court held that ITAT has no jurisdiction in law to direct for registration of trust without
jurisdiction to direct Court (Allahabad)/[2017] 251 Taxman 397 there being satisfaction recorded by registering authority as contemplated by section 12AA.
registration (Allahabad)/[2018] 402 ITR 161 (Allahabad)

115 12AA cancellation based on UP Distillers Association Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1023-4 2017-TIOL-2253-HC-DEL-IT Registration granted to a trust can be cancelled u/s 12AA(3), by relying upon the statement of
132(4) statement concerned person recorded u/s 132(4)

116 12AA cancellation based on UP Distillers Association Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0413-187 2018-TIOL-138-SC-IT Registration granted to a trust can be cancelled u/s 12AA(3), by relying upon the statement of
132(4) statement concerned person recorded u/s 132(4)

117 12AA implementation of CIT Vs Annadan Trust Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0723-80 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 207 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessee was implementing welfare schemes of various State Governments, i.e.,
welfare schemes 258 Taxman 54 (Kerala) supplying food to poor school children on funds earmarked and disbursed by State
Government. It was held that implementation of such schemes would not lead to any charitable
activity entitling registration under section 12AA
118 12AA condonation of delay CIT Vs Hemla Trust Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0903-34 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 293 The assessee-trust filed application for registration under section 12AA with a delay of 18 years
(Madras)/[2018] 258 Taxman 406 (Madras) contending that founder of trust was an elderly person who was under bona fide impression that
trust had been registered under Act. High Court held that reason so assigned was not sufficient
for condonation of delay and, thus, registration could be granted to assessee-trust only with
prospective effect
119 12AA order not passed in 6 CIT v/s Sheela Christian Madras High Court 2013 2013-LL-0227-84 [2013] 32 taxmann.com 242 High Court held that not passing an order within the prescribed time would not automatically
months Charitable Trust (Madras)/[2013] 214 Taxman 551 result in granting registration to trust.
(Madras)/[2013] 354 ITR 478
(Madras)/[2013] 262 CTR 100 (Madras)
120 12AA order not passed in 6 CIT VS AWADH BIHARI SHRI Allahabad High 2018 2017-LL-0713-19 2017-TIOL-2876-HC-ALL-IT Non-disposal of an application for registration, by granting or refusing registration, before the
months RAM LOK VIKAS SANSTHAN Court expiry of six months as provided under s. 12AA (2) of the IT Act, 1961 would not result in
MEHDAWAL deemed grant of registration
121 12AA one bogus donation CIT Vs Jagannath Gupta Family Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0201 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 34 (SC)/[2019] In this case, registration of assessee trust u/s 12AA was cancelled for receiving a bogus
Trust 411 ITR 235 (SC) donation. High Court by impugned order restored registration holding that one bogus donation
would not establish that activities of trust are not genuine. Supreme Court held that it is held
that reason assigned by High Court is erroneous and runs contrary to plain language of section
12AA(3) and, therefore, order of High Court is to be set aside and matter is remanded to
appellate authority i.e. Commissioner ( Exemptions) for consideration on merits

122 12AA 10(23C) trustees members of Navodaya Education Trust Vs Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0205-47 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 148 High Court held that an institution having the cloak of "educational trust", whose trustees
same family, huge Union of India Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 253 Taxman 412 appear to be the members of same family and who thoroughly abused the benefit u/s 10(23C)
Capitation Fees (Karnataka)/[2018] 405 ITR 30 for purposes other than pure educational purposes is not entitled to such exemption benefit.
collected (Karnataka)/[2018] 302 CTR 381 Huge Capitation Fees collected by Medical Institutions to provide seats to the intending
(Karnataka), 2018-TIOL-261-HC-KAR-IT students, cannot be treated as voluntary contribution for charitable purposes by the parents

123 12AA(3) 11 Capitation fee- no Ms. Mohini Jain v. State of SC 1992 Other Acts (1992) 3 SCC 666 The Hon'ble Apex Court held that capitation fee was nothing but price of selling education and
charitable activity Karnataka & Ors. such "teaching shops" were contrary to the Constitutional scheme and abhorrent to our Indian
culture.
124 12AA(3) Cancellation of Sinhagad Technical Education Bombay High 2012 2012-LL-0201-29 [2012] 19 taxmann.com 136 Amendment made to sub-section (3) of section 12AA with effect from 1-6-2010 empowers
registration prior to Society Vs CIT Court (Bombay)/[2012] 206 Taxman 314 Commissioner to cancel registration of a trust which has been obtained at any time under
01.06.2010 (Bombay)/[2012] 343 ITR 23 section 12A
(Bombay)/[2012] 249 CTR 45 (Bombay)
125 13 entire exemption u/s Pt.Kanahya Lal Punj Charitable Delhi High Court 2007 2007-LL-0514-3 [2008] 171 Taxman 134 (Delhi)/[2008] 297 Assessee claimed deduction under Secs.11 and 12. Department disallowed for violation of
section 11 to be Trust Vs DIT ITR 66 (Delhi), 2007-TIOL-406-HC-DEL-IT Sec.13. Sec.13(3) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a) lays down that money can be lent to an
disallowed interested party only on interest and against security. It was held that since the assesee had
violated Sec.13, its appeal was not sustainable
126 13 CIT Vs Vijeta Educational Allahabad High 2011 2011-LL-0817-43 2011-TIOL-591-HC-ALL-IT In view of clause (c) of Section 13(1) rendering the entire income of Trust or charitable
Society Court institution on liable to tax even if only part of income is directed to be applied for the benefit of
the specified persons.
127 13 entire exemption u/s DIT Vs Charanjiv Charitable Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0318-48 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi)/[2014] High Court held that if in case of a charitable trust, it is found that provisions of section
section 11 to be Trust 223 Taxman 71 (Delhi)/[2014] 267 CTR 305 13(1)(c)(ii) read with section 13(3) are not followed, trust would lose its exemption in entirety,
disallowed (Delhi) with result that assessment of its income will be made according to provisions of Act

128 13 part of exemption u/s CIT Vs Audyogik Shikshan Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1218-57 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 247 The funds of assessee-trust were utilized for purchase of car in name of its trustee, there was
section 11 to be Mandal Court (Bombay)/[2019] 261 Taxman 12 (Bombay) violation of section 13(2)(b), read with section 13(3). High Court held that denial of exemption
disallowed, car in under section 11 should be limited only to amount which was diverted in violation of section
name of trustee 13(2)(b)
 10

129 13 interest free loan to CIT Vs Audh Educational Allahabad High 2011 2011-LL-0817-1 [2011] 15 taxmann.com 235 The Assessee advanced certain sum without any security to its treasurer. It could not furnish
treasurer Society Court (Allahabad)/[2011] 203 Taxman 166 any detail about rate of interest and mode of recovery of loan and same was also not reflected
(Allahabad) in its books as well as audit report except resolution which could not be relied upon. High Court
held that it was a clear case of violation of section 13 and exemption had been rightly denied to
it
130 13 loan to interested Budha Vikas Samity Vs CIT Patna High Court 2011 2011-LL-0428-1 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 234 (Patna)/[2011] The assessee ran a school which was accommodated in a building owned by one 'S', one of
person 199 Taxman 395 (Patna)/[2011] 242 CTR members of society. During relevant assessment year, it had lent a sum of Rs. 5,00,000
324 (Patna) (rupees five lacs), out of its receipts to 'S' for expansion of school building. Assessing Officer
held that 'S' was an 'interested person' within meaning of section 13(3) and there was no
evidence that amount had been utilized for purpose it had been lent. High Court held that
exemption had been rightly denied
131 13 violation of section 13 DIVYA JAN KALYAN TRUST Allahabad High 2018 2018-LL-1003-65 2018-TIOL-2121-HC-ALL-IT Violation of provisions of Section 13 by a charitable trust registered u/s 12A, renders it ineligible
VS ACIT Court for Section 11 benefits
132 13A failure to submit CIT v. Indian National Congress Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0323-1 [2016] 67 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi)/[2016] The political party failed to submit audited accounts within period stipulated by mandatory
audited accounts (I) 239 Taxman 72 (Delhi)/[2016] 383 ITR 99 requirement of proviso to section 13A. High Court held that it would not be entitled to tax
(Delhi)/[2016] 285 CTR 97 (Delhi) exemption under section 13A

133 13A unable to maintain its CIT v. Janata Party Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0323 [2016] 68 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi)/[2016] The political party was unable to maintain its accounts for any reason whatsoever, or satisfy pre-
accounts 239 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2016] 383 ITR conditions set out in proviso to section 13A. High Court held that exemption cannot be granted
146 (Delhi)/[2016] 285 CTR 144 (Delhi) to it from payment of tax

134 14A satisfaction not Indiabulls Financial Services Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-1121-54 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi)/[2017]Elaborate analysis carried out by the AO - as indeed the three important steps indicated by him
expressly recorded Ltd. Vs DCIT 395 ITR 242 (Delhi) in the order, shows that all these elements were present in his mind, that he did not expressly
record his dissatisfaction in these circumstances, would not per se justify this Court in
concluding that he was not satisfied or did not record cogent reasons for his dissatisfaction to
reject the AO's conclusion
135 14A mixed funds Avon Cycles Ltd Vs CIT P&H High Court 2014 2014-LL-0820-83 [2015] 53 taxmann.com 297 (Punjab & In this case, funds utilized by assessee was mixed funds. Hence, interest paid on borrowed
Haryana)/[2015] 228 Taxman 368 (Punjab fund was also relatable to interest on investment made in tax free funds. High Court held that
& Haryana)(MAG.) interest expenditure relatable to investment in tax free funds was to be computed under
provisions of Rule 8D(2)(ii)
136 14A expenditure on Punjab Tractors Ltd Vs CIT P& H High Court 2017 2017-LL-0203-5 [2017] 78 taxmann.com 65 (Punjab & High Court held that where assessee had earned tax free dividend income, Assessing Officer
administrative Haryana)/[2017] 246 Taxman 31 (Punjab & was justified in presuming that assessee had incurred expenditure towards administrative
activities Haryana)/[2017] 393 ITR 223 (Punjab & activities necessary to earn said income and, thus, he was entitled to resort to rule 8D
Haryana)/[2017] 293 CTR 50 (Punjab &
Haryana), 2017-TIOL-353-HC-P&H-IT
137 14A 14A applicable to Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0508 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 111 Supreme Court held that Section 14A would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable
dividend income Company Ltd. Vs DCIT (SC)/[2017]247Taxman361(SC)/[2017] 394 under section 115-O
ITR 449 (SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 121 (SC)

138 14A proportionate Nahar Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs P & H High Court 2017 2017-LL-0417-81 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 154 (Punjab & For A.Y.2006-07, High Court held that disallowance of proportionate administrative expenditure
administrative CIT Haryana)/[2017] 395 ITR 12 (Punjab & made for earning exempted dividend income computed on reasonable basis would be just
expenditure Haryana)
139 14A raking up ground not Jubilant Securities Pvt Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0110-29 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 126 (Delhi)/[2018] In this case, the CIT(A) reduced the quantum of disallowace made u/s 14A and the assessee
challenged DCIT 253 Taxman 284 (Delhi)/[2018] 400 ITR did not file appeal against the same. High Court held that raking up the same issue after four
527 (Delhi), 2018-TIOL-75-HC-DEL-IT years when there is a favourable judicial decision on record, is akin to raising a dispute against
a stale issue
140 14A investment for Maxopp Investment Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0212-85 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC)/[2018] (1) When the shares are held by the assessee not to earn exempt income but to retain
controlling stake, 254 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2018] 402 ITR 640 controlling stake in the investee company, the dominant purpose test cannot be said to be
investment in stock-in- (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 489 (SC) relevant for the purpose of Sec 14A and disallowance u/s 14A can be made. It is not the
trade, recording of dominant purpose test but the principle of apportionment which is ingrained in the provisions of
satisfaction Section 14A. (2) When the assessee itself makes disallowance of certain expenditure incurred
to earn dividend income and if the AO does not accept such disallowance, it is necessary for
the AO to record satisfaction before rejecting the same.
(3) Section 14A would be applicable only to income arising from the investment portfolio and
not from stock-in-trade
141 17(3) non-compete fees on B.L.Shah v. ACIT Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-0205-173 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 99 (Bombay)/[2016] High Court held that amount received by assessee from his employer on retirement claimed as
retirement Court 284 CTR 165 (Bombay) non-compete fees was rightly assessed as profit in lieu of salary where assessee could not
explain manner in which compensation was arrived at
142 22 ALV of unsold flats CIT Vs Ansal Housing & Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-0726-92 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 254 (Delhi)/[2016] High Court held that an assessee engaged in business of construction of house property, would
Construction 241 Taxman 418 (Delhi)/[2016] 389 ITR be liable to pay tax on ALV of flats lying unsold during year
373 (Delhi)
143 22 licensing of terrace Niagara Hotels & Builders (P) Delhi High Court 2016 2015-LL-0325-6 2015-TIOL-1007-HC-DEL-IT Receipt from licensing of terrace floor for antenna was assessable, as income from house
floor for antenna Ltd. v. CIT property and is neither assesse as business income nor income from other sources.[S. 28(i),
56]
 11

144 22 letting out of CWT Vs Atma Ram Properties Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0921-2 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 89 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that where assessee-company was formed for purchasing and selling
properties kept for (P.) Ltd. 399 ITR 380 (Delhi) properties, earning of rental income by letting out properties owned by it was chargeable to tax
sale under head 'income from house property' and not under head 'Profits and gains of business'

145 23 flats held as stock in Ansal Housing & Construction Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1103-9 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 238 (Delhi) In this case, flats constructed by assessee were held as stock in trade and same were not at all
trade Ltd. Vs DCIT let out for any previous years. High Court Held that there would be no question of availing
vacancy allowance under section 23(1)(c); and assessee would be liable to pay tax on ALV of
said flats under section 23(1)(a)
146 23 property leased to Maneklal Agarwal Vs DCIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0714-17 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 116 (SC)/[2017] In this case, Income-tax Authorities found that assessee had leased out his property to his own
family members 250 Taxman 94 (SC)/[2017] 396 ITR 721 family members to show lesser income in his hand. Supreme Court held that Assessing
(SC)/[2017] 297 CTR 117 (SC) Authorities could have taxed said income in hands of assessee
147 23 annual value of Susham Singla Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0410 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 167 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court confirmed the findings of High Court that the annual value of every second
second property 247 Taxman 312 (SC), 2017-TIOL-170-SC- property owned by an individual, which admittedly remained vacant throughout the year would
IT be assessable u/s 23(1)(a)
148 24 interest paid on loan Vijay Aggarwal v. CIT P&H High Court 2016 2015-LL-0827-2 236 Taxman 542/ 135 DTR 276/ 286 CTR High Court Held that deduction for interest paid on loan is not available when loan was taken
452 after acquisition of the house property
149 24 IHP or business Universal Plast Ltd Supreme Court 1999 1999-LL-0323 [1999] 103 Taxman 493 (SC)/[1999] 237 Test laid down in Universal Plast Ltd 237 ITR 454 (SC) as to when income from property is
income ITR 454 (SC)/[1999] 153 CTR 95 (SC) assessable as “business profits” and as “income from house property”

150 24 letting out with Shambhu Investment Supreme Court 2003 2003-LL-0121-3 [2003] 129 Taxman 70 (SC)/[2003] 263 ITR Supreme Court upheld decision of High Court which held that letting out office premises along
facilities 143 (SC)/[2003] 184 CTR 91 (SC) with certain facilities and services to various persons was assessable as income from house
property
151 24 Contractual receipts Abhishek Govil & Somya Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0106-262 2016-TIOL-102-HC-DEL-IT Contractual receipts received by an assessee being the owner of a house property after
for maintainance Salwan Vs CIT deducting TDS pursuent to a maintainance agreement, cannot be treated as rental income in
the hands of assessee
152 24 sub-licensing of mall Raj Dadarkar and Associates Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0509-1 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 193 (SC)/[2017] The assessee having obtained a property on lease, constructed various shops and stalls on it
Vs ACIT 248 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2017] 394 ITR 592 and gave same to various persons on sub-licencing basis. Supreme Court held that since
(SC)/[2017] 298 CTR 117 (SC), 2017-TIOL- assessee was not engaged in systematic or organized activity of providing service to occupiers
222-SC-IT of shops/stalls, income from sub-licensing was to be taxed as income from house property and
not as business income
153 24 56(2) building let out with Jay Metal Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0713-5 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that when the owner had let out his building together with equipments &
equipments & CIT 249 Taxman 450 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR furniture, then the rental income is composite one and has to be treated as income from other
furniture 194 (Delhi) sources
154 24 interest free security CIT v K. Streetlite Electric P &H High Court 2010 2010-LL-1027-82 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 532 (Punjab & In this case, interest free security deposit taken by assessee highly disproportionate to monthly
deposit Corporation ( 2011) Haryana)/[2011] 336 ITR 348 (Punjab & rent charged . High Court Held that this being the device to circumvent liability to income tax ,
Haryana)/[2011] 244 CTR 647 (Punjab & notional interest on security deposit to be treated as income from house property.
Haryana)
155 24 income from sub- Sheetal Khurana Foods P. Ltd. P &H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0103-1 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 58 (Punjab & The assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing and sale of food items acquired
letting vs. ITAT Haryana)/[2011] 200 Taxman 33 (Punjab & property on lease for a long period and in turn sub let the same. The income therefrom, was
Haryana)(MAG.)/[2011] 335 ITR 1 (Punjab held to be taxable under the head income from house property and not business income as
& Haryana) letting out property was not its business activity. Further the letting out was not temporary
arrangement.
156 24 depreciation Shri Hardoi Baba Roller Flour Allahabad High 2019 2019-LL-0306-57 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 100 The assessee earned business income from renting out its property, and claimed depreciation
Mills (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Court (Allahabad)/[2019] 262 Taxman 320 on said building. High Court Held that claim of deduction under section 24 could not be allowed
(Allahabad)
157 28(i) loss due to transfer of Preetam Singh Luthra Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-1130-157 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 222 (SC)/[2016] The assessee had transferred licence before forfeiture of same. High Court held that loss, if
licence before 389 ITR 447 (SC) any, on account of forfeiture was sustained not by assessee but by transferee and, thus,
forfeiture assessee was not entitled to claim said loss as a business loss
158 28(i) loss from forfeiture of ICS Systems (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2019 2019-LL-0110-50 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 131 (Delhi)/[2019] High Court Held that loss incurred in transactions of purchase of plot due to forfeiture by State
plot 261 Taxman 169 (Delhi) Industrial Development Corporation of part of advance deposit would be capital loss

159 28(i) 45 interest-bearing Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd. v. Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-0222-55 2016-TIOL-448-HC-MUM-IT High Court Held that mere non-introduction of interest-bearing funds is not sufficient to
funds CIT Court conclude that gains from sale of shares are not business income
160 28(i) 145 consolidated Aman Khera Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0104-17 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 287 (SC)/[2017] SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where assessees were paid a consolidated
advance 245 Taxman 71 (SC) amount for 5 years in advance for their services but there was no agreement between parties
about spreading amount over 5 years and accounts were maintained on cash basis, entire
amount was to be taxed in year of receipt
161 28(i) unclaimed credit CIT Vs T.V. Sundaiam Iyengar Supreme Court 1996 1996-LL-0911-2 [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC)/[1996] 222 ITR Amounts representing unclaimed credit balances were written back to profit and loss account
balances & Sons Ltd. 344 (SC)/[1996] 136 CTR 444 (SC) by assessee during assessment year under consideration. Supreme Court held that they could
be treated as assessee's income and are liable to be taxed
162 28(i) shares as stock in Sanjeev Bajaj Vs CIT P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-0407-123 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 80 (Punjab & If once shares held by assessee have been shown in stock in trade by the assessee itself, it
trade Haryana)/[2017] 390 ITR 478 (Punjab & could not be contended later that it had made investment in such shares
Haryana), 2016-TIOL-3192-HC-P&H-IT
 12

163 28(i) securitization of lease L & T Finance Ltd. Vs DCIT Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0917-5 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 91 (Bombay)/[2018] During the year, assessee had itself credited to profit and loss account an amount on account
rentals Court 258 Taxman 282 (Bombay) of securitization of lease rentals receivable in subsequent years. High Court held that the same
was to be taxed during year under consideration
164 28(iv) premium received on CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0601-1 [2012] 22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that premium received on sale of export quota by exporters of ready made
sale of export quota Ltd. 210 Taxman 145 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2012] 345 garments is not covered by any of clauses i.e., clause (iiia) to (iiic) of section 28 and therefore,
ITR 135 (Delhi) cannot be included while computing deduction under section 80HHC

165 28(iv) loan written back Solid Containers Ltd. Vs DCIT Bombay High 2008 2008-LL-0829-28 [2009] 178 Taxman 192 (Bombay)/[2009] The assessee had taken a loan from 'P' during previous year for business purposes which was
Court 308 ITR 417 (Bombay)/[2009] 222 CTR 455 written back in relevant assessment year as a result of consent terms arrived at between 'P'
(Bombay) and assessee. Assessee claimed that said loan was a capital receipt and, therefore, did not
come under section 41(1). Assessing Officer rejected assessee's contention and held that
credit balance written back was income of assessee in view of fact that it was directly arising
out of business activity of assessee and, thus, was liable to tax under section 28. Addition was
upheld by High Court
166 28(iv) principal loan waived CIT v. Ramaniyam Homes P. Madras High Court 2016 2016-LL-0422-28 [2016] 68 taxmann.com 289 High Court held that amount representing principal loan waived by bank under one time
by bank Ltd (Madras)/[2016] 239 Taxman 486 settlement scheme would constitute income falling under section 28(iv)
(Madras)/[2016] 384 ITR 530
(Madras)/[2016] 287 CTR 200 (Madras)
167 31 expenditure on CIT Vs Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0328-14 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 260 (SC)/[2017] The assessee was engaged in business of manufacturing cotton yarns and textile. High Court
repairs and Co. Ltd 393 ITR 108 (SC) held that expenditure incurred on repairs and replacement of old machinery was not allowable
replacement of old as deduction
machinery
168 32 capital expenditure Mother Hospital (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0308-62 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 375 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that in view of Explanation 1 to section 32(1), it is only when assessee
omn leased property 247 Taxman 12 (SC)/[2017] 392 ITR 628 holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by it on
(SC)/[2017] 294 CTR 25 (SC) construction or renovation or improvement of building, assessee would be entitled to
depreciation to extent of such expenditure incurred
169 32 depreciation on Indus Finance Corporation Ltd. Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0303-34 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 233 (SC)/[2017] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that where pursuant to search proceedings, Assessing
leased assets Vs CIT 246 Taxman 222 (SC) Officer rejected assessee's claim for depreciation on leased out assets on ground that leasing
transaction was bogus, rectification application filed by assessee raising a plea that income
from leasing of said equipment should also be excluded from taxable income, could not be
allowed
170 32 non-compete fee Sharp Business System vs. CIT Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-1105-48 [2012] 27 taxmann.com 50 (Delhi)/[2012] In case of non-competition agreement, advantage is a restricted one in point of time and it does
211 Taxman 576 (Delhi)/[2012] 254 CTR not confer any exclusive right to carry on primary business activity. Hence, amount paid as non-
233 (Delhi) compete fee does not quality for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii)

171 32 machinery not used CIT Vs Brawn Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0504-71 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 262 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that depreciation can be allowed only when there has been depreciation of the
Pharmaceauticals Ltd 248 Taxman 285 (Delhi)/[2017] 394 ITR machinery or the machine was destroyed, and not when the same is not used but is in workable
478 (Delhi), 2017-TIOL-902-HC-DEL-IT condition. On closure of pharmaceutical business, company was not entitled to write off value
of assets under section 32(1)(iii); it would only be entitled to depreciation under section 32(1)(i)

172 32(1) Expl. depreciation on Mother Hospital (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0308-62 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 375 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that in terms of Explanation 1 to section 32(1), it is only when assessee
leased assets 392 ITR 628 (SC) holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by it on
construction or renovation or improvement of building, assessee would be entitled to
depreciation to extent of such expenditure incurred
173 32(1) Expl. depreciation on CIT Vs Viswams Madras High Court 2019 2019-LL-0415-16 [2019] 105 taxmann.com 289 High Court held that where assessee had taken a building on lease and incurred expenditure
leased assets (Madras)/[2019] 263 Taxman 497 towards interior improvement and further construction of two floors of said building, impugned
(Madras)/[2019] 414 ITR 148 (Madras) expenditure incurred by assessee had brought enduring benefit; therefore, same was capital in
nature and would come within mischief of Explanation 1 to section 32(1)

174 32A development Jupiter Radios Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1114-6 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 93 (Delhi) The assessee had been allowed development rebate/investment allowance in respect of certain
rebate/investment machinery but it failed to establish/claim and show that machinery after its transfer had
allowance continued to be in use for specific number of years as per requirements of section 32A. High
Court held that benefit of investment allowance/development rebate had rightly been withdrawn

175 35D premium not capital Berger Paints India Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0328 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 450 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that premium' collected by assessee-company on its subscribed share
employed in business 393 ITR 113 (SC) capital is not 'capital employed in business of company' within meaning of section 35D so as to
of company enable company to claim deduction of said amount

176 36(1)(iii) S. A. Builders ACIT Vs. Tulip Star Hotels Ltd. Supreme Court 2012 Interim Order [2012] 21 taxmann.com 97 (SC) Supreme Court held that S. A. Builders 288 ITR 1 (SC) needs reconsideration
 13

177 36(1)(iii) interest free advance Embassy Development Corpora Karnataka High 2015 2015-LL-0908-34 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 234 The assessee-builder advanced borrowed amount to its sister concern for purpose of acquiring
tion Vs ACIT Court (Karnataka)/[2015] 378 ITR 677 a portion of property in project proposed to be developed by its sister concern and said amount
(Karnataka) was not utilised for said project but it was used for some other project. High Court held that
assessee was not entitled for deduction of interest paid on borrowed amount

178 36(1)(iii) interest free advance Thukral Regal Shoes Vs CIT P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-0721-7 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 192 (Punjab & The assessee-firm failed to establish that properties purchased by its partners were put to use
Haryana)/[2016] 241 Taxman 361 (Punjab by firm. High Court held that deduction on interest expenditure on borrowed fund could not be
& Haryana)/[2017] 391 ITR 119 (Punjab & allowed in view of proviso to section 36(1)(iii)
Haryana)/[2016] 290 CTR 596 (Punjab &
Haryana)
179 36(1)(iii) interest free advance CIT v. Cornerstone Exports (P.) Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0215-106 [2016] 67 taxmann.com 345 The assessee made advances to group companies at a lower rate of interest and borrowed
Ltd. (Gujarat)/[2016] 238 Taxman 465 (Gujarat) funds at higher rate. High Court held that disallowance of differential interest was justified

180 36(1)(iii) interest free advance Abhishek Industries Ltd. P&H HC 2006 2006-LL-0804-6 [2006] 156 Taxman 257 (Punjab & The assessee had borrowed certain funds on which liability to pay tax is being incurred and on
Haryana)/[2006] 286 ITR 1 (Punjab & other hand, certain amounts had been advanced to sister concerns or others without carrying
Haryana)/[2006] 205 CTR 304 (Punjab & any interest and without any business purposes. High Court held that interest to extent that
Haryana) advance had been made without carrying any interest is to be disallowed under section
36(1)(iii)
181 36(1)(iii) interest free advance CIT Vs R Mohan Madras High Court 2011 2011-LL-0926-46 2011-TIOL-687-HC-MAD-IT The assessee is not entitled to claim interest expenditure on the borrowed funds which were
diverted to non business objects
182 36(1)(iii) interest free advance Punjab Stainless Steel Inds. Vs Delhi High Court 2011 2010-LL-0514-8 [2011] 196 Taxman 404 (Delhi)/[2010] 324 Tribunal gave no finding that interest free advances were made by assessee to sister concern
CIT ITR 396 (Delhi) for its business purposes. It was also noticed that advances were extended out of borrowed
funds and not out of any credit balance available with assessee-firm. High Court upheld
disallowance under section 36(1)(iii)
183 36(1)(iii) interest free advance Sangeetha Jain Vs ACIT Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-1128-36 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 90 The assessee claimed deduction of interest on loan taken in name of Hotel 'H' on ground that
Court (Karnataka)/[2019] 261 Taxman 220 said hotel was being run by 'M' enterprises of which she was proprietoress. High Court held that
(Karnataka) since there was no evidence on record showing that expenses claimed towards Hotel 'H' were
in any manner related to 'M' Enterprises, assessee's claim under section 36(1)(iii) was rightly
rejected by authorities below
184 36(1)(va) employees' Popular Vehicles & Services Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0702-81 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 13 (Kerala)/[2018] High Court held that assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of employees' contribution to
contribution (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 257 Taxman 120 (Kerala)/[2018] 406 ITR ESI and EPF as provided under section 36(1)(va) only if same is paid within due date as
150 (Kerala) specified under relevant statutes
185 36(1)(va) employee's M/S Checkmate Facility And Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-1015-55 2018-TIOL-2202-HC-AHM-IT If wages are paid in the following month, then liability to deposit the employee's contribution to
contribution Electronic Solutions Pvt Ltd. Vs the fund would not be deferred by one month
DCIT
186 36(1)(vii) bad debt CIT Vs Escotrac Finance And Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0719-8 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that mere failure to recover sum from share broker which was given as
Investments Ltd. 249 Taxman 514 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR advance for investment in badla transactions could, at best, be a business loss but would not
563 (Delhi) be a bad debt

187 36(1)(vii) provision for NPA Southern Technologies Ltd.v. Supreme Court 2010 2010-LL-0111-4 [2010] 187 Taxman 346 (SC)/[2010] 320 A provision for NPA was debited to Profit and Loss Account. High Court held that it is only a
Jt. CIT ITR 577 (SC)/[2010] 228 CTR 440 (SC) notional expense and, therefore, the same would be added back to that extent in the
computation of total income under the Income-tax Act
188 37 reliable vouchers and L H Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT Supreme Court 1980 1980-LL-0826-3 [1980] 4 Taxman 5 (SC)/[1980] 125 ITR 293 Even as per Section 37 of the Act no expenses shall be allowed unless it is supported by
necessary (SC)/[1980] 19 CTR 185 (SC) reliable vouchers and necessary documentary evidences.
documentary
evidences
189 37 Bad Debt Glass Miniature Bulb Industries Supreme Court 1993 1993-LL-0914-5 [1993] 204 ITR 352 (SC)/[1994] 116 CTR Deduction not allowable where assessee had not taken any legal steps to recover the money
68 (SC)
190 37(1) provision Seagram Distilleries (P.) Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-1024-26 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 242 (SC)/[2016] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that provision made by assessee, an IMFL manufacturer,
CIT 243 Taxman 352 (SC) for transit breakages of bottles while goods were transported to various States, being in nature
of contingent liability, could not be allowed as deduction
191 37(1) guarantee United Breweries Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0111-47 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 346 (SC)/[2017] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that where various banks advanced loans to assessee-
commission paid to 245 Taxman 72 (SC) company on basis of its assets offered as a security to banks and not on basis of personal
Managing Director guarantee of Managing Director of company, guarantee commission paid to Managing Director
would not be deductible under section 37(1)
192 37(1) loss on capital Hasimara Industries Ltd. Vs. Supreme Court 1998 1998-LL-0513-1 [1998] 98 Taxman 352 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR Supreme Court held that since assessee itself treated it as capital advance for purpose of
advance CIT 842 (SC)/[1998] 147 CTR 70 (SC) acquiring a new and modern profit-making apparatus and not as loan or money-lending
transaction, loss suffered had to be treated as capital loss
193 37(1) provision Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd Supreme Court 2009 2009-LL-0512 [2009] 180 Taxman 422 (SC)/[2009] 314 For a provision to qualify for recognition, there must be a present obligation arising from past
Vs. CIT ITR 62 (SC)/[2009] 223 CTR 425 (SC) events, settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow of resources and in respect of
which a reliable estimate of amount of obligation is possible. Moreover, data must be
systematically maintained by assessee
 14

194 37(1) expenditure on Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs. CIT Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-0227-5 [1997] 91 Taxman 26 (SC)/[1997] 225 ITR Supreme Court held that expenditure incurred on issuing shares to increase its share capital
issuing shares 798 (SC)/[1997] 140 CTR 598 (SC) would not be allowable as revenue expenditure.
195 37(1) expenditure on Punjab State Industrial Corpn Supreme Court 1997 1996-LL-1204-5 [1997] 93 Taxman 5 (SC)/[1997] 225 ITR Supreme Court held that expenditure incurred on issuing shares to increase its share capital
issuing shares Ltd. Vs. CIT 792 (SC)/[1997] 140 CTR 594 (SC) would not be allowable as revenue expenditure.
196 37(1) total reconditioning Bharat Geras Ltd v CIT Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0603-124 [2011] 12 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi)/[2011] Assessee incurred huge expenditure on total reconditioning and overhauling of machinery.
201 Taxman 86 (Delhi)/[2011] 337 ITR 368 Since reconditioning had resulted in imparting useful life to hitherto old and unfit machinery and
(Delhi)/[2012] 247 CTR 395 (Delhi) thus , resulting in a benefit of enduring nature expenditure was capital in nature.

197 37(1) interests free Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs Rajasthan High 2017 2017-LL-0504-16 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 127 (Rajasthan) The assessee paid amounts to closely knitted concerns and failed to establish that any service
advances DCIT Court was received, even though there existed an agreement for rendering of services. Assessing
Officer was right in treating same as interests free advances to divert business funds

198 37(1) refurbishing/decoratin Indus Motor Company (P) Ltd. Kerala High Court 2016 2016-LL-0217-152 [2017]80taxmann.com104(Kerala)/[2016] After the introduction of Expln. 1 to S. 32(1), by a legal fiction, the assessee is treated as the
g leased property v. Dy. CIT 382 ITR 503 (Kerala)/[2016] 285 CTR 209 owner of the building for the period of his occupation. Accordingly, by refurbishing/decorating or
(Kerala) doing interior work, the assessee derives an enduring benefit for the period of occupation
therefore, the expenditure is capital in nature
199 37(1) refuseal to cross Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0204-2 382 ITR 639/ 238 Taxman 434 Assessee refused to cross examine witness despite being granted opportunity. It was not
examine witness violation of principles of natural justice. Disallowance of commission was held to be justified

200 37(1) freebees to medical Confederation of Indian Himachal High 2012 2012-LL-1226-23 [2014] 44 taxmann.com 365 (Himachal Claim of any expenses incurred in providing freebees to medical practitioner in violation of
practitioner Pharmaceutical Industry (SSI) Court Pradesh)/[2013] 353 ITR 388 (Himachal provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations,
Vs CBDT Pradesh) 2002 shall be inadmissible (Circular No.5 of 2012)
201 37(1) royalty paid Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0609 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 212 (SC)/[2017] A new business was set up with technical know-how provided by a Japanese company and
CIT 249 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2017] 395 ITR 713 lump sum royalty was paid. Supreme Court held that expenditure in form of royalty paid would
(SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 569 (SC) be in nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure
202 37(1) expenditure prior to ALD Automotive Pvt Ltd Vs Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0305-34 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 475 The assessee failed to produce necessary evidence to prove that business was set up and it
setting up of DCIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 254 Taxman 233 was ready to commence. Supreme Court held that expenditure incurred by assessee prior to
business (Bombay), 2018-TIOL-457-HC-MUM-IT setting up of business could not be allowed
203 37(1) payment for obtaining GKN Driveline India Ltd. Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2018 2017-LL-1127-4 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 208 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee entered into an agreement for purchase of assets and liabilities of a newly set up
requisite permission 252 Taxman 297 (Delhi) factory of a company (SML), and paid a certain sum for obtaining requisite permission and
and approvals approvals in smooth transfer of factory to assessee. High Court held that said payment was
clearly for an enduring benefit and not just towards non-compete obligation

204 37(1) subscription fee for Abhipra Capital Ltd. Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0215-45 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 101 (Delhi)/[2018] High Court held that subscription fee paid by share broking company for obtaining membership
NSE Membership 254 Taxman 19 (Delhi)/[2018] 402 ITR 1 in National Stock Exchange was capital expenditure
(Delhi)
205 37(1) membership in a L. Jairam Parwani Vs DCIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0409-91 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 291 High Court held that payment for acquiring membership in a social club was not a business
social club (Madras)/[2018] 255 Taxman 362 (Madras)expenditure, in absence of any evidence to effect that membership was acquired for
entertaining customer
206 37(1) education expenses Indian Galvanics Cyrium Foils Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0706-11 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 259 There was no direct nexus between education expenses incurred abroad by assessee for
incurred abroad for Ltd. Vs DCIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 257 Taxman 32 (Bombay) director's son and business of assessee's company. High Court held that such expenses could
director's son not be allowed as business expenditure

207 37(1) amount paid to its United Spirits Ltd. Vs CIT Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0720-1 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 259 High Court held that amount paid by assessee to its tenant in terms of settlement in order to
tenant for vacating Court (Calcutta)/[2018] 257 Taxman 458 obtain vacant and peaceful possession of its business premises, was capital expenditure not
(Calcutta) eligible for deduction under sec. 37(1)
208 37(1) distributable surplus PCIT Vs Chamundi Winery & Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0925-19 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 568 High Court held that distributable surplus paid to Indian subsidiary of UK based liquor company
is application of Distillery Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 408 ITR 402 under agreement whereby assessee (an Indian entity) agreed to manufacture and sell alcoholic
income (Karnataka) products under control and supervision of Indian subsidiary was an 'application of income' by
assessee and hence, same was not an allowable expenditure under section 37(1)

209 37(1) liability not FFE Minerals India (P.) Ltd. Vs Madras High Court 2018 Not Available [2018] 98 taxmann.com 170 (Madras) The assessee claimed deduction of liquidated damages paid for delay in delivery of machinery.
crystalised JCIT In view of fact that there had been only discussions and negotiations for arriving at amount of
liquidated damages but liability did not crystalise in relevant year, it was held that claim so
raised was to be rejected
210 37(1) business promotion Sandeep Marwah Vs ACIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1112-47 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 123 (Delhi)/[2019] The assessee claimed deduction in respect of business promotion expenses. In view of fact
expenses 260 Taxman 231 (Delhi) that assessee did not produce material and documents to show that said expenditure was
incurred for business purpose, mere fact that payments were made through credit card would
not be sufficient to prove their genuineness and, thus revenue authorities were justified in
making disallowance of 50 per cent of expenses claimed as deduction

211 37(1) penalty for illegalities PCIT Vs Sushil Gupta Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0222-45 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 409 High Court held that fine or penalty for redemption of goods for irregularities or illegalities
in importing goods Court (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 41 committed in process of importing goods is not an allowable deduction
(Bombay)/[2019] 411 ITR 678 (Bombay)
 15

212 37(1) slum development Grace Shelter Vs ACIT Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0226-40 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 133 The assessee claimed deduction of slum development expenditure which was contingent upon
expenditure Court (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 423 authority giving vacant possession of plot. High Court held that in view of fact that authority was
(Bombay) unable to hand over vacant possession of land, impugned claim was to be disallowed

213 37(1) amount forfeited by Nandkishor Motilal Shah Vs CIT Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0313-110 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 370 The assessee entered into agreement for use and purchase of a windmill plant for power
seller Court (Bombay)/[2019] 263 Taxman 36 (Bombay) generation. High Court held that amount forfeited by seller upon failure to pay full instalments
within stipulated time period would be capital expenditure
214 40(a)(ia) actually paid Palam Gas Service Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0503 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 43 Supreme Court held that provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) shall be attracted when the amount is
(SC)/[2017]247Taxman379(SC)/[2017] 394 not 'payable' to a contractor or sub-contractor but also when it has been actually paid
ITR 300 (SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 1 (SC)

215 40(a)(ia) already been paid PCIT Vs Manzoor Ahmed J&K High Court 2017 2017-LL-0727-5 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 233 (Jammu & High Court held that section 40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where amount remains
Walvir Kashmir)/[2017] 298 CTR 579 (Jammu & payable at end of year but also where it has already been paid without deducting tax at source
Kashmir)
216 40(a)(ia) lease rent paid Academy of Medical Sciences Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0307-85 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 293 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessee paid lease rent to Kerala State Co-operative Hospital Complex without deducting
without TDS Vs CIT 254 Taxman 419 (Kerala)/[2018] 403 ITR tax at source. High Court held that in view of fact that said resident receiver filed its return
74 (Kerala) belatedly and did not pay tax on rent received, assessee could not be absolved from
consequences flowing from sections 201(1) and 40(a)(ia)
217 40(b) remuneration to Sood Brij & Associates Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-1104-5 [2011] 15 taxmann.com 76 (Delhi)/[2011] The quantum of remuneration payable to partners has been left undecided in partnership deed
partner 203 Taxman 188 (Delhi) to be decided by partners at a future point of time. High Court held that remuneration paid to
partners cannot be allowed as deduction under section 40(b)
218 40A(2)(b) onus of proving CIT vs Shatrunjay Diamonds Mumbai HC 2003 2003-LL-0129 [2003] 128 Taxman 759 (Bombay)/[2003] High Court held that in case of transactions u/s 40A(2)(b) the onus of proving the
reasonableness 261 ITR 258 (Bombay)/[2003] 183 CTR 86 reasonableness of the price is on the assessee
(Bombay)
219 40A(2) genuineness of Patterson & Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs Madras High Court 2019 2019-LL-0308-128 [2019] 105 taxmann.com 150 (Madras) High Court held that merely because there was an agreement between assessee company and
transaction DCIT related party in which one of directors had substantial interest, same could not be allowed in
absence of genuineness of transaction
220 40A(3) cash purchase Madhav Govind Dhulshete Vs Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1008-85 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay)/[2018] The assessee, engaged in business of sale of Kerosene, purchased it from notified dealer by
ITO Court 259 Taxman 149 (Bombay) making payment in cash on ground that said payment was made as per guidance of District
Civil Supply Officer. High Court held that in view of fact that District Supply Officer's order did
not mandate any mode of payment either in cash or by cheque, and, moreover, there were
banking channels available even when supplies had been effected, impugned disallowance was
rightly made by authorities below under sec. 40A(3)

221 40A(3) Rule 6DD(j) cogent material Natesan Krishnamurty Vs ITO Madras 2019 2019-LL-0104-46 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 342 In absence of any cogent material, the existence of exceptional circumstances beyond control
(Madras)/[2019] 262 Taxman 127 (Madras) of payer for application of rule 6DD(j) could not be said to be established. Also see
Jhunjhunwala & Co Vs CIT 167 Taxman 58(Delhi), CIT Vs Singamshetty Subba Rao 357 ITR
529(A.P)
222 41(1) waiver of loan Rollatainers Ltd. Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0830-211 [2011] 15 taxmann.com 111 (Delhi)/[2011] High Court held that waiver of loan taken in course of carrying on business was regarded as
203 Taxman 31 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2011] 339 benefit in revenue field and, accordingly, addition confirmed by ITAT was upheld
ITR 54 (Delhi)/[2012] 250 CTR 25 (Delhi)

223 41(1) waiver of loan Logitronics (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0218-4 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 302 (Delhi)/[2011] High Court held that if loan was taken for acquiring capital asset, waiver thereof would not
197 Taxman 394 (Delhi)/[2011] 333 ITR amount to any income exigible to tax. But, on other hand, if loan was taken for trading purpose
386 (Delhi)/[2011] 240 CTR 20 (Delhi) and was treated as such from very beginning in books of account, waiver thereof may result in
income, more so when it was transferred to profit and loss account
224 41(1) trading liability for West Asia Exports & Imports Madras High Court 2019 2019-LL-0311-59 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 170 In this case, trading liability was incurred by assessee in course of its erstwhile timber business,
ceased business (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (Madras)/[2019] 262 Taxman 372 which was discontinued ten years ago. High Court held that Assessing Authority rightly inferred
(Madras)/[2019] 412 ITR 208 (Madras) that such trading liability ceased to exist and trading credits were liable to be taxed as profits of
business under section 41(1)
225 43(5) future contracts CIT Vs Bharat R Ruia(HUF) Mumbai HC 2011 2011-LL-0418-30 [2011] 10 taxmann.com 265 High Court held that future contracts for purchase/sale of an underlying security permitted to be
settled otherwise (Bombay)/[2011] 199 Taxman 87 traded on stock exchange and settled otherwise than by actual delivery would be speculative
than by actual (Bombay)/[2011] 337 ITR 452 transactions under section 43(5)
delivery (Bombay)/[2011] 241 CTR 1 (Bombay)
226 43(5) speculative Commercial Motors Ltd Vs Allahabad High 2013 2013-LL-0709-36 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 528 The assessee had made no payment for the purchase of the shares though the identity of the
transaction in shares DCIT Court (Allahabad)/[2013] 218 Taxman 69 broker was established. The broker had not shown a single profit pertaining to the assessee
(Allahabad)/[2014] 268 CTR 219 during the relevant period. At the most, even if the assessee had actually entered in the
(Allahabad), 2013-TIOL-571-HC-ALL-IT purchase and sale of the shares, it was ultimately settled otherwise without taking delivery and,
therefore, the said transaction is a speculative transaction as per Section 43(5)

227 43(5) speculative Kanubhai A Patel Vs ACIT Gujarat High Court 2014 Not Available 2014-TIOL-2299-HC-AHM-IT A single transaction of speculative purchase of shares carried forward on settlement basis can
transaction in shares be considered as series of transactions to constitute speculative transaction u/s 43(5). The
assessee would be deprived of claiming set off of losses arising out of such transactions
against other business profits
 16

228 43B employee's M/S UNIFAC Management Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1023-20 2018-TIOL-2278-HC-MAD-IT, [2018] 100 The mandates of Sections 36(1)(va) & 43B are different from each other & so cannot be read in
contribution Services (India) Pvt Ltd. Vs taxmann.com 244 (Madras)/[2018] 409 ITR conjunction so as to determine eligibility for deduction on employee's contribution to social
DCIT 225 (Madras) security schemes
229 43B interest liability CIT Vs Gujarat Cypromet Ltd Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0221-16 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 346 (SC)/[2019] The assessee had taken loan from a bank and it instead of payment of interest liability accrued
adjusted from further 262 Taxman 93 (SC) during year obtained further loan from bank and sought to adjust interest liability in said loan
loan and further it claimed deduction of interest liability. High Court held that Explanation 3C to
section 43B was squarely applicable in facts of instant case and Assessing Officer had rightly
disallowed deduction as claimed by assessee
230 43D non performing Housing & Urban Development Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0703-3 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that NPAs to be classified as per section 43D read with Rule 6EB of rules and
assets Corporation Ltd. Vs Addl CIT 249 Taxman 364 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR not by amended guidelines of National Housing Board effective from 31-3-2008
667 (Delhi)
231 44AB Stock statement to Binod Kumar Agarwala Vs CIT Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0621-1 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 422 High Court held that Assessing Officer could have made additions to assessee's income on
Bank Court (Calcutta)/[2018] 257 Taxman 58 basis of window dressed financials, as they had been prepared to obtain bank loan and had no
(Calcutta)/[2019] 411 ITR 493 connection with actuals [Stock statement to Bank]
(Calcutta)/[2018] 303 CTR 406 (Calcutta)

232 44BB mobilisation fee Sedco Forex International Inc. Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1030-4 [2017] 87 taxmann.com 29 (SC)/[2017] 251 The assessee, foreign company, had entered into contracts with (ONGC) for giving hire of their
Vs CIT Taxman 459 (SC)/[2017] 399 ITR 1 rig for carrying out oil exploration activities in India. Supreme Court held that mobilisation fee
(SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 1 (SC) received by assessee was to be included for computation of deemed profits and gains of
business, chargeable to tax under section 44BB
233 45 silver utensils are Ashok Surana v. CIT Calcua High Court 2016 2016-LL-0415-43 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 318 High Court held that silver utensils could not be said to have been purchased for the business
personal effects (Calcutta)/[2016] 384 ITR 267 (Calcutta) of the assessee. The silver utensils were the personal effects of the assessee and they were
out of the purview of capital assets. The loss incurred on sale of silver utensils was not
allowable.
234 45 2(14) rubber estate sold for Synthite Industrial Ltd. Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-0831-17 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 138 (Kerala)/[2018] The assessee purchased a rubber estate and converted said land by cutting trees into housing
housing plots 404 ITR 605 (Kerala) plots, and sold same to several people for construction of villas. High Court held that said land
had ceased to be an agricultural land, and, consequently, assessee could not claim exemption
from levy of capital gains
235 45 2(42B) sale of property Bindiya H. Malkani v. CIT Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-0629-11 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 393 The vendor did not honour agreement dated 18-5-1980 for sale of land and assessee 'held'
Court (Bombay)/[2016] 386 ITR 87 property only upon order being passed upon filing of consent terms in Court on 11-3-1988. High
(Bombay)/[2016] 287 CTR 184 (Bombay) Court held that sale of said property on 29-11-1988 would result in short-term capital gains and
not in long-term capital gain
236 45 2(47) Joint Development CIT Vs DR. T.K. Dayalu Karnataka High 2011 2011-LL-0620-5 [2011] 14 taxmann.com 120 The assessee, on 26-1-1996, entered into joint venture agreement with developers. The
Agreement Court (Karnataka)/[2011] 202 Taxman 531 agreement provided that certain sum would be paid to assessee as non-refundable advance
(Karnataka) and in addition to same, he was also entitled for build-up area to be constructed by developers
at free of cost. The assessee returned a long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer imposed
tax on same. The assessee contended that capital gain was not assessable in year 1997-98
and same was liable to be taxed in assessment year 2003-04 when construction was
completed. It was revealed from agreement that actual possession of property was handed
over on 30-5-1996. Hon’ble High Court held that since possession of property was handed over
on 30-5-1996, capital gain was liable to be taxed in assessment year 1997-98

237 45 2(47) Joint Development Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Bombay High 2003 2003-LL-0213-2 [2003] 129 Taxman 497 (Bombay)/[2003] "If the contract, read as a whole, indicates passing of or transferring of complete control over
Agreement of Bombay Vs CIT Court 260 ITR 491 (Bombay)/[2003] 180 CTR 107 the property in favour of the developer, then the date of the contract would be relevant to
(Bombay) decide the year of chargeability." As per the above decision, a taxable event is triggered from
the execution of a development agreement and the capital gain is taxed in the year of entering
into the said agreement.
238 45 2(47) Joint Development Potla Nageswara Rao Vs ACIT AP High Court 2014 2014-LL-0409-59 [2014] 50 taxmann.com 137 (Andhra High Court held that when transfer of capital asset is complete, sale consideration has to be
Agreement Pradesh)/[2014] 226 Taxman 173 (Andhra taken into consideration for purpose of assessment even though payment of consideration
Pradesh)(MAG.)/[2014] 365 ITR 249 deferred till other assessment year
(Andhra Pradesh)
239 45 2(47) Joint Development CIT vs. Dr. Arvind S. Phake Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-1120-15 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 307 Immovable property can be regarded to have been transferred on the date of execution of the
Agreement Court (Bombay)/[2018] 401 ITR 96 Development Agreement and irrevocable General Power of Attorney only if the terms indicate
(Bombay)/[2018] 301 CTR 650 (Bombay) that complete control is given to the developer. If the entire consideration is not received by the
assessee and physical possession of the property is not parted with, there is no transfer u/s
2(47)(v). For purpose of claiming exemption under section 54EC, date of transfer on full
payment was to be considered; date of agreement in respect of property is irrelevant

240 45 2(47) Joint Development CIT v. Dinesh D. Ranka Karnatka High 2016 2015-LL-0611 [2016] 68 taxmann.com 255 The assessee subjected major portion of land to joint development agreement and later on
Agreement Court (Karnataka)/[2016] 380 ITR 440 surrendered FAR to developer in respect of remaining land kept for personal use and received
(Karnataka)/[2015] 280 CTR 224 consideration. High Court held that same would amount to transfer within definition of section
(Karnataka) 2(47)
 17

241 45 2(47) surrender of FAR CIT v. Dinesh D. Ranka Supreme Court 2017 2016-LL-0219-211 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 118 (SC)/[2016] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that where assessee surrendered FAR to developer in
239 Taxman 262 (SC) respect of remaining land kept for his personal use and received consideration, same would
amount to transfer within definition of section 2(47)
242 45 2(47) Joint Development Dr. Joao Souza Proenca Vs ITO Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0117-72 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 83 (Bombay)/[2018] Actual possession of property was given to developer vide agreement dated 30-4-2001. High
Agreement Court 253 Taxman 275 (Bombay)/[2018] 401 ITR Court held that transfer under section 2(47) would be considered to take place in year of
105 (Bombay)/[2018] 301 CTR 653 agreement not in year when power of attorney was executed to give access to developer to do
(Bombay) certain jobs on said land

243 45 2(47) agreement to sell CIT Vs Harbour View Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0924-76 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 185 Pursuant to agreement to sell, possession of land was handed over by assessee and sale
with possession (Kerala)/[2018] 409 ITR 599 (Kerala) consideration was received, provisions of section 2(47) would apply and mere fact that contract
was subsequently terminated by mutual consent, would not improve case of assessee to
wriggle out of purview of section 2(47). CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini [2017] 251 Taxman 202/86
taxmann.com 94 (SC) (para 16) distinguished.
244 45 28(i) interest-bearing Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd. v. Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-0222-55 2016-TIOL-448-HC-MUM-IT Mere non-introduction of interest-bearing funds is not sufficient to conclude that gains from sale
funds CIT Court of shares are not business income
245 45 Sale of shares Manoj Kumar Samdaria Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0312-57 [2014] 45 taxmann.com 394 (Delhi)/[2014] The assessee was selling shares very frequently, volume and magnitude was very high and he
business income 223 Taxman 245 (Delhi)(MAG) earned only a meagre amount of dividend. High Court held that income arising from sales of
shares was assessable as business income
246 45 Sale of shares Manoj Kumar Samdaria Vs CIT Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0811-34 [2014] 52 taxmann.com 247 (SC)/[2015] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that where assessee was selling shares very frequently,
business income 228 Taxman 63 (SC) volume and magnitude was very high and he earned only a meagre amount of dividend, income
arising from sale of shares was assessable as business income
247 45 Sale of shares CIT Vs Gopal Purohit Bombay High 2010 2010-LL-0106-1 [2010] 188 Taxman 140 (Bombay)/[2011] Tribunal had a pure finding of fact that assessee was engaged in two different types of
business income Court 336 ITR 287 (Bombay)/[2010] 228 CTR 582 transactions, first set of transactions involving investment in shares and second set of
(Bombay) transactions involving dealing in shares (without delivery) for purposes of business. High Court
had held that it had correctly held that delivery-based transactions should be treated as those in
nature of investment transactions and profit received therefrom should be treated either as
short-term or as long-term capital gain, depending upon period of holding and profit from other
transactions should be treated as business income

248 45 Sale of shares Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0315-14 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 101 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee was selling shares very frequently, volume and magnitude was very high and he
business income 254 Taxman 394 (Delhi) earned only a meagre amount of dividend. High Court held that income arising from sales of
shares was assessable as business income
249 45 Sale of shares Ramilaben D. Jain Vs ACIT Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0820-28 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 217 The assessee sold shares within a period of one week from date of purchase in more than
business income Court (Bombay)/[2018] 258 Taxman 97 eighty per cent of cases. High Court held that intention of assessee in indulging in these
(Bombay)/[2018] 407 ITR 589 (Bombay) transactions was to earn profit at earliest possible occasion and, thus, profit from sale and
purchase of shares was business income
250 45 Sale of shares Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Supreme Court 1968 1967-LL-1122-1 [1968] 68 ITR 486 (SC) It was held that facts and circumstances in instant case could lead to no other conclusion
business income Ltd. Vs CIT except that these shares were purchased and sold by assessee with motive of earning a profit
by such purchases and sales and not with object of investing its capital in these shares in order
to derive income from that investment. The object of sale as given by assessee had, remained
unproved, whereas fact that purchases of shares were made at a time when they were not
expected to give a good return as investment and were actually sold at a very good profit led to
reverse inference that purchases and sales of these shares were an adventure in nature of
trade. Therefore, income derived by assessee from sale of its shares and securities in relevant
previous year was revenue receipt and as such taxable under Act.

251 45(5) enhanced CIT Vs Ghanshyam (HUF) Supreme Court 2009 2009-LL-0716-1 [2009] 182 Taxman 368 (SC)/[2009] 315 Supreme Court held that even in cases where pending appeal, Court/Tribunal/Authority, before
compensation ITR 1 (SC)/[2009] 224 CTR 522 (SC) which appeal is pending, permits claimant to withdraw, against security or otherwise, enhanced
compensation (which is in dispute), same is liable to be taxed under section 45(5) in year of
receipt
252 45(5) interest on enhanced CIT Vs Govindbhai Mamaiya Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0904-23 [2014] 52 taxmann.com 270 (SC)/[2015] Supreme Court held that interest on enhanced compensation has to be taxed in year of receipt;
compensation 229 Taxman 138 (SC)/[2014] 367 ITR 498 it is not to be spread over years on accrual basis
(SC)/[2014] 271 CTR 31 (SC)
253 45(5) enhanced CIT Vs Chet Ram (HUF) Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0912-10 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 103 (SC)/[2017] The assessee received some amount of enhanced compensation as also interest thereon
compensation 251 Taxman 4 (SC)/[2018] 400 ITR 23 under an interim order passed by High Court in pending appeals relating to land acquisition.
(SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 459 (SC) Supreme Court held that it was liable to be assessed for tax in year in which said amount had
been received
254 47(v) wholly owned CIT Vs Sunaero Ltd Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0601 [2012] 22 taxmann.com 12 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that to claim benefit under section 47(v), assessee must be a wholly owned
subsidiary 209 Taxman 67 (Delhi)/[2012] 345 ITR 163 subsidiary of holding company; any other subsidiary cannot claim benefit under section 47(v)
(Delhi)/[2012] 251 CTR 209 (Delhi)

255 47 47A allotment of shares CIT Vs Prakash Electric Co Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0723-97 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 210 High Court held that allotment of shares of the company which succeeds to the business of the
Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 407 ITR 340 partnership firm has to be made before the end of relevant previous year in which such
(Karnataka) succession of business takes place
 18

256 48 development charges Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0203-38 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)/[2017] The original alottees transferred rights and interest in land to a company which further sold land
to original alottees Vs ACIT 246 Taxman 243 (Delhi)/[2017] 392 ITR to assessee. High Court held that in absence of any obligation upon assessee to reimburse
508 (Delhi) development charges to original alottees, no deduction could be claimed against cost

257 48 development charges Unitech Hospitality Services Ltd Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0721-1 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 16 (SC)/[2017] 250 SLP dismissed. High Court had held that where original alottees transferred rights and interest
to original alottees Vs ACIT Taxman 156 (SC) in land to a company which further sold land to assessee, in absence of any obligation upon
assessee to reimburse development charges to original alottees, no deduction could be claimed
against cost
258 49(1)(iii) acquired tenancy Dharmakumar C. Kapadia Vs Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0618-38 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 194 The assessee acquired tenancy rights by inheritance i.e. from his father before 1-4-1981. High
rights by inheritance ACIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 257 Taxman 239 Court held that in view of provisions of section 49(1)(iii), benefit of indexation of cost of
(Bombay) acquisition could not be granted while computing capital gain arising from sale of said rights

259 50 sale of depreciable CIT v. Sakthi Metal Depot Kerala HC 2010 2010-LL-0106-3 [2010] 189 Taxman 329 (Kerala)/[2011] 333 High Court held that once depreciation is claimed on an asset, its subsequent sale would give
assets ITR 492 (Kerala)/[2010] 232 CTR 279 rise to short term capital gain only
(Kerala)
260 50 sale of depreciable Smt. Meena v. Pamnani Vs CIT Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0929-1 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 175 High Court held that once depreciation has been allowed on an asset, it would remain a
assets Court (Bombay)/[2017] 251 Taxman 100 business asset and profit earned on sale of said asset would be taxed under section 50
(Bombay)/[2018] 404 ITR 548 (Bombay)
261 50B slump sale Vatsala Shenoy Vs JCIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0209-56 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 351 (SC)/[2017] The assets of partnership firm were sold on a going concern basis and assets were put to sale
247 Taxman 155 (SC)/[2017] 391 ITR 363 after their valuation and there was a specific and separate valuation for individual assets and
(SC) even liabilities were taken care of when amount of sale was apportioned among outgoing
partners. High Court held that said transaction could not be treated as slump sale

262 50C shares of limited Carlton Hotel Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0131-220 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 257 High Court held that when an Assessee brings in shares of limited companies into partnership
companies into Court (Allahabad)/[2017] 399 ITR 611 firm as his contribution to its capital, there is a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of
partnership firm as (Allahabad), 2017-TIOL-2379-HC-ALL-IT Section 45 of Income-tax Act. The High Court also held that it is the date of transfer which is
capital relevant, so that the assessment year would be the accounting year during which a taxable
income falls. The Court further went on to hold that whether stamp duty is payable or not, is not
a factor relevant for attracting section 50C.

263 50C shares of limited Carlton Hotel Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1106 2017-TIOL-417-SC-IT SLP of assessee dismissed. High Court had held that when an Assessee brings in shares of
companies into limited companies into partnership firm as his contribution to its capital, there is a transfer of a
partnership firm as capital asset within the meaning of Section 45 of Income-tax Act. The High Court also held that
capital it is the date of transfer which is relevant, so that the assessment year would be the accounting
year during which a taxable income falls. The Court further went on to hold that whether stamp
duty is payable or not, is not a factor relevant for attracting section 50C.

264 50C stock in trade Saras Metals Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0704-3 2017-TIOL-1389-HC-DEL-IT Mere resolution by Board of Directors to consider immovable properties as 'stock in trade' in
firm's A/Cs, would not relieve the firm from satisfying I-T Authorities of the genuineness of sale
of their property as 'stock in trade'. Simple sale of property in earlier AY and resultant reduction
of 'stock in trade', not being questioned by AO, would relieve the assessee from establishing
that sale of plot in question was not by way of an investment resulting in short term capital
gains
265 50C 54EC deemed sale Jagdish C. Dhabalia Vs ITO Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0312-63 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 208 (Bombay) High Court held that computation of capital gain and consequently computation of exemption
consideration Court under section 54EC, shall have to be worked out on basis of substituted deemed sale
consideration of transfer of capital asset in terms of section 50C it could claim exemption only in
relation to amount of investment made in specified bond and not qua entire capital gain
computed as per section 50C
266 54 acquisition of two Pawan Arya Vs CIT (A P&H High Court 2010 2010-LL-1213-33 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 312 (Punjab & Assessee claimed exemption on capital gains on sale of flat on ground of acquisition of two
houses residential house) Haryana)/[2011] 200 Taxman 66 (Punjab & houses. Assessing Officer set off capital gain against one of houses but held claim not to be
Haryana)(MAG.)/[2011] 237 CTR 210 admissible against second house. Tribunal upheld order of Assessing Officer. It was held that
(Punjab & Haryana) claim for exemption under section 54 is not admissible against acquisition of two houses.

267 54B purchase in name of Kamal Kant Kamboj Vs ITO P&H High Court 2017 2017-LL-0524-121 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 541 (Punjab & High Court held that purchase of agricultural land by assessee in name of his wife would not
his wife Haryana)/[2017] 397 ITR 240 (Punjab & qualify for exemption under section 54B
Haryana)
268 54B land for farm house Gopal S. Pandit Vs CIT Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0625-51 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 246 The assessee had not used land for agricultural purposes for a minimum period of two years
and guest house Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 257 Taxman 50 before its sale and, moreover, assessee, in his submissions had stated that said land was
(Karnataka)/[2018] 408 ITR 346 purchased for purpose of making a farm house and guest house for him and his family. High
(Karnataka) Court held that exemption under section 54B would not be allowed
269 54F execution of sale Ushaben Jayantilal Sodhan Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0501-23 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 453 High Court held that transfer of immovable property takes place on date of execution of sale
deed ITO (Gujarat)/[2018] 255 Taxman 454 deed and not on date of agreement to sale. For the purpose of Sec 54F benefits, the
(Gujarat)/[2018] 407 ITR 276 (Gujarat) construction work must not precede the transfer of immovable property
 19

270 56 interest of FDR kept CIT Vs Bhawal Synthetics Rajasthan High 2017 2017-LL-0505-203 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 478 High Court held that interest earned on FDR kept with bank as margin money for obtaining
as margin money (India), Udaipur Court (Rajasthan)/[2017] 248 Taxman 127 letter of credit to purchase machinery was taxable as income from other sources
(Rajasthan)/[2017] 297 CTR 104
(Rajasthan)
271 56 interest on money Shree Maheshwar Hydel Power Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0717-46 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 167 (Bombay) The assessee raised amounts from Debentures and deposited same with bank and, interest
raised through Corporation Ltd. Vs CIT Court earned by assessee from said deposits, was not inextricably linked with setting up of capital
debentures assets. High Court held that said interest income could not be capitalised
272 56(2) building let out with Jay Metal Industries Pvt Ltd Vs Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0713-5 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that when the owner had let out his building together with equipments &
equipments & CIT 249 Taxman 450 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR furniture, then the rental income is composite one and has to be treated as income from other
furniture 194 (Delhi) sources
273 56(2)(viib) share premium Sunrise Academy Of Medical Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0522-12 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 181 (Kerala), 2018- High Court held that share premium received by a company over & above the fair market value
received above fair Specialities India Pvt Ltd Vs TIOL-991-HC-KERALA-IT which was not correctly offered to tax, is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(viib) as income from other
market value ITO source. Satisfactory explanation under section 68 would not save Company from excess share
premium taxability under section 56(2)(viib)
274 56(2)(viib) share premium Sunrise Academy Of Medical Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0712-93 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 43 (Kerala)/[2018] High Court held that share premium received by a company over & above the fair market value
received above fair Specialities India Pvt Ltd Vs 257 Taxman 373 (Kerala)/[2018] 409 ITR which was not correctly offered to tax, is chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(viib) as income from other
market value ITO 109 (Kerala) source. Satisfactory explanation under section 68 would not save Company from excess share
premium taxability under section 56(2)(viib)
275 68 Loan - Toby Consultants (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2009 2009-LL-1123-4 [2010] 324 ITR 338 (Delhi) The assessee-company had shown in books unsecured loans of Rs. 2.68 crores and Rs. 2.45
creditworthiness not CIT crores from its two directors and it was explained that money belonged to its own entity and
proved was routed through directors. Tribunal found that directors who advanced loan were admittedly
not at all men of means for advancing such huge amount of loan amounting to about Rs. 5
crores and secondly that assessee even for taking such huge amount of loan did not want to
pay any interest for which creditors also agreed. High Court held that Tribunal had rightly,
arrived at a finding of fact, on analysis of all relevant material on record, that genuineness of
transaction had not been established and assessee had failed to independently prove same

276 68 Loan - reciept by Mangilal Jain Vs ITO Madras High Court 2009 2009-LL-0616-8 [2009] 315 ITR 105 (Madras)/[2010] 229 High Court held that merely because loan transaction was sought to be treated as genuine by
cheque not sufficient CTR 183 (Madras) assessee, on ground that loan was given by cheque, that by itself would not prove genuineness
of transaction particularly as assessee had miserably failed in proving such a transaction
especially in view of contrary statement and withdrawal of statement by alleged lender

277 68 Loan - Sanraj Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0217-29 2016-TIOL-316-HC-DEL-IT High Court held that addition made u/s 68 on account of unsecured loans was justified, where
creditworthiness not CIT initial onus of proving the creditworthiness of the lenders was not discharged by the assessee
proved
278 68 Loan - cash deposit Blessing Construction Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2013 2013-LL-0313-1 [2013] 32 taxmann.com 366 High Court held that where sizeable amounts were deposited in cash in account of depositors
before issue of (Gujarat)/[2013] 214 Taxman 645 (Gujarat) only before their withdrawal through cheques in favour of assessee, addition was justified
cheque
279 68 Loan - cash deposit Suman Gupta Vs ITO Allahabad High 2012-LL-0807-51 ITA No.680/12 vide judgement dated Where identical amounts were found to have been deposited in accounts of half a dozen
before issue of Court 07.08.2012 lenders prior to lending, and assessee could only produce one lender for examination, 'addition
cheque is to be made as assessee failed to prove genuineness of loans
280 68 Loan - cash deposit Suman Gupta Vs CIT Supreme Court 2013 2013-LL-0122-69 2013-LL-0122-69 SLP of assessee dismissed. High Court had held that where identical amounts were found to
before issue of have been deposited in accounts of half a dozen lenders prior to lending, and assessee could
cheque only produce one lender for examination, 'addition is to be made as assessee failed to prove
genuineness of loans
281 68 Loan - submission of PCIT Vs Bikram Singh Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0825-1 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104 (Delhi)/[2017] Even if a transaction of loan is made through cheque, it cannot be presumed to be genuine in
PAN Card & ID proof 250 Taxman 273 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR the absence of any agreement, security and interest payment. Mere submission of PAN Card of
not sufficient 407 (Delhi) creditor does not establishes the authenticity of a huge loan transaction particularly when the
ITR does not inspire such confidence. Mere submission of ID proof and the fact that the loan
transactions were through the banking channel, does not establish the genuineness of
transactions. Loan entries are generally masked to pump in black money into banking channels
and such practices continue to plague Indian economy

282 68 Loan - application for Upendra Singh Raghav Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-1122-2 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 95 (Allahabad) The AO made addition to assessee's income under sec. 68 in respect of excess loan availed
additional evidence Court from 'R', since assessee did not file any application before Commissioner (Appeals) to adduce
not filed additional evidence in order to prove genuineness of cash credit. Moreover, no prayer was
made by assessee with regard to exercise of powers of Commissioner (Appeals) under section
250 (4) read with section 250(5). High Court held that appellate authorities were justified in
confirming said addition
283 68 Loan - Sitaram Ramchanddas Patel Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0626-61 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 290 (Gujarat) The assessee failed to prove capacity of concerned persons who alleged to have given
creditworthiness not ITO unsecured loan and/or gift. High Court held that impugned addition made under sec. 68 was to
proved be confirmed
 20

284 68 Loan - failure to Pavankumarm Sanghvi Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0212-90 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 386 The assessee received loan from two companies. High Court held that in view of fact that on
produce lenders (Gujarat)/[2018] 404 ITR 601 date assessee was given loan there were credit entries of almost similar amounts and balance
(Gujarat)/[2018] 301 CTR 265 (Gujarat) after these transactions was a small amount and moreover assessee failed to produce these
lenders for verification, impugned amount was rightly brought to tax under section 68

285 68 Loan - Seema Jain Vs ACIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0711-127 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi)/[2018] The AO made addition to assessee's income in respect of loan availed. High Court held that in
creditworthiness not 257 Taxman 380 (Delhi)/[2018] 406 ITR view of fact that lender company did not have tangible or intangible fixed assets and, moreover,
proved, meagre 411 (Delhi) it had declared a meagre income of few thousand rupees and, thus, it was not in a position to
income give such a huge loan to assessee, impugned addition was to be confirmed

286 68 Supply of Goods Rekha Krishnaraj Vs ITO Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0814-15 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 256 (SC)/[2017] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that addition under section 68 could be made even for an
250 Taxman 333 (SC) unexplained credit amount on account of supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash
credit
287 68 Advances received Om Land Realty (P.) Ltd. Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 Interim Order [2017] 86 taxmann.com 226 The assessee claimed to have received advances towards booking of plots but could not
DCIT (Gujarat)/[2017] 251 Taxman 115 (Gujarat) produce details of all applicants who paid said sum. High Court held that Tribunal was justified
in making additions under section 68 to extent where details of applicants were not produced

288 68 Gift - banking Tirath Ram Gupta Vs CIT P&H High Court 2006 2006-LL-0927-6 [2009] 177 Taxman 294 (Punjab & High Court held that a gift cannot be genuine because the amount has come by way of cheque
channel not sufficient Haryana)/[2008] 304 ITR 145 (Punjab & or draft through banking channels. The identity of the donor, his creditworthiness, relationship
proof Haryana) with the donee and the occasion are to be proved to be genuine.
289 68 Gift - not genuine Balbir Singh Vs CIT P&H High Court 2010 2010-LL-1006-1 [2010] 8 taxmann.com 202 (Punjab & High Court affirmed findings of Assessing Officer and Commissioner (Appeals) holding that gift
Haryana)/[2011] 196 Taxman 339 (Punjab was was compensatory in nature and not genuine. A perusal of the NRE account in the name
& Haryana)/[2011] 334 ITR 287 (Punjab & of the donor showed that the amount had been deposited in the said account immediately
Haryana) before making the gift to show the same to be through a banking channel

290 68 Gift - not genuine Jaspal Singh Vs CIT P&H High Court 2006 2006-LL-0915-8 [2007] 158 Taxman 306 (Punjab & The assessee claimed to have received certain sum as gifts but failed to establish that donor
Haryana)/[2007] 290 ITR 306 (Punjab & had means and gift was genuine and was given out of natural love and affection. High Court
Haryana)/[2006] 205 CTR 624 (Punjab & held that amount received as gift was correctly to be added to income of assessee
Haryana)
291 68 Gift - CIT Vs Anil Kumar Delhi High Court 2007 2007-LL-0313-1 [2008] 167 Taxman 143 (Delhi)/[2007] 292 Assessee had received two gifts of certain amount from NRE accounts of two donors.
creditworthiness & ITR 552 (Delhi) However, assessee had not placed on record anything to show as to what was financial
genuineness not capacity of donors, what was creditworthiness of donors, what kind of relationship donors had
proved with assessee, what were sources of funds gifted to assessee and whether donors had
capacity of giving large amount of gift to assessee. It was held that the Tribunal was not
justified in deleting addition on account of gifts alleged to have been received by assessee

292 68 Gift - not genuine Sarita Aggarwal Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0204-4 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)/[2015] The assessee could not prove genuinenes of gift claimed to have been received from an NRI
231 Taxman 600 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR and also factum that transaction was out of love and affection, a sine qua non to establish a
586 (Delhi)/[2017] 294 CTR 71 (Delhi) genuine gift. High Court held that amount was added to assessee's income under section 68

293 68 Gift - E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2016 2016-LL-0520-159 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 123 (Kerala) The assessee claimed that during year he had received a gift of Rs. 35 lakhs from his brother
creditworthiness & and Assessing Officer invoking provisions of section 68 added gift amount to assessee's
genuineness not income, since assessee failed to establish creditworthiness of donor and genuineness of
proved transaction. High Court held that impugned addition was justified
294 68 Gift - E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0530-53 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 1 (SC)/[2017] 244 SLP dismissed. High Court had held thatwhere assessee failed to establish creditworthiness of
creditworthiness & Taxman 193 (SC) donor and genuineness of transaction, addition made in terms of section 68 of gift amount was
genuineness not justified
proved
295 68 Gift - Pandit Vijay Kant Sharma Vs Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-1127-1 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 219 The authorities below made addition of amount received by assessee as gift under section 68
creditworthiness & CIT Court (Allahabad)/[2018] 402 ITR 358 (Allahabad) taking a view that gifts were not genuine as donors were very petty persons having no source
genuineness not to gift such a heavy amount to assessee. High Court held that said finding being finding of fact,
proved did not require any interference
296 68 Gift - CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0423-64 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi)/[2018] In course of block assessment proceedings, AO made addition to assessee's undisclosed
creditworthiness & 406 ITR 609 (Delhi) income in respect of gift, in view of fact that assessee did not even know donor personally.
genuineness not Moreover, he himself in presence of his Chartered Accountant had made a statement under
proved sec. 132(4) admitting that said gift was bogus. High Court held that impugned addition was to
be confirmed
 21

297 68 Gift - CIT Vs P. Mohanakala Supreme Court 2007 2007-LL-0515-2 [2007] 161 Taxman 169 (SC)/[2007] 291 A bare reading of section 68 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, suggests that (i) there has to be
creditworthiness & ITR 278 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 20 (SC) credit of amounts in the books maintained by the assessee ; (ii) such credit has to be a sum of
genuineness not money during the previous year ; and (iii) either (a) the assessee offers no explanation about
proved the nature and source of such credits found in the books or (b) the explanation offered by the
assessee, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, is not satisfactory. It is only then that the sum
so credited may be charged to Income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year.
The expression "the assessee offers no explanation" means the assessee offers no proper,
reasonable and acceptable explanation as regards the sums found credited in the books
maintained by the assessee.

298 68 bogus sales-cash Zaveri Diamonds Vs CIT SC 2012 2012-LL-0903-26 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 552 (SC) The assesee had not disclosed the names or persons to whom jewelry has been sold and also
deposits no evidence has been furnished by assessee to establish that cash deposited in its bank
account was in lieu of sales made of jewelry. High Court held that addition on account of
unverifiable sales was justified
299 68 Cash Deposit - Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) Vs P&H High Court 2014 2014-LL-0512-32 [2014] 46 taxmann.com 340 (Punjab & In respect of huge amount of cash deposited in bank, assessee failed to give list of persons
details not furnished CIT Haryana)/[2014] 224 Taxman 178 (Punjab who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits. High
& Haryana)(MAG.) Court held that Assessing Officer was justified in adding said amount to assessee's taxable
income under section 68.
300 68 Cash Deposit - Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) Vs Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0115-79 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219 (SC)/[2016] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that where assessee had failed to give list of persons who
details not furnished CIT 239 Taxman 264 (SC) advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of huge amount of cash
deposited in its bank account, Assessing Officer was justified in adding said amount to
assessee's taxable income under section 68
301 68 Cash Deposit - Kavita Chandra Vs CIT P&H High Court 2017 2017-LL-0307-54 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 317 (Punjab & In this case, cash withdrawals were made for purpose of business and same was not available
source not explained Haryana)/[2017] 248 Taxman 358 (Punjab for redeposit and, assessee was unable to link cash withdrawn from bank to cash deposit. High
& Haryana)/[2017] 398 ITR 641 (Punjab & Court held that same would be held to be assessee's unexplained income
Haryana)
302 68 Cash Deposit - Krishan Kumar Sethi Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0314-88 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi)/[2018] Cash deposits were made in account of assessee and assessee had claimed that said payment
against agreement to 255 Taxman 193 (Delhi)/[2018] 403 ITR was against agreement to sell, but he had not given any explanation for same and also failed to
sell 189 (Delhi) establish financial capacity of proposed buyers of his property. High Court held that addition
under section 68 was called for
303 68 Cash Deposit - Dinesh Kumar Jain Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0808-70 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 113 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee claimed that he withdrew certain amount from his bank account for construction
source not explained 407 ITR 65 (Delhi) of a building and surplus money, when not required, was redeposited, in same bank account.
High Court held that since assessee failed to produce any bills/vouchers relating to
construction, and justify substantial cash withdrawals for meeting construction cost and re-
deposits when money was not required, additions under section 68 in respect of amount
redeposited was justified
304 68 Cash Deposit - no Rajiv Jain Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1113-50 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 92 (Delhi)/[2019] The assessee challenged addition made to its income under section 68 in respect of amount
evidence 410 ITR 179 (Delhi) deposited in bank contending that said amount came from sale of wearing apparel and
traditional silver utensils. High Court held that since there was no evidence and material to
establish sale or inheritance, etc., impugned addition made by authorities below was to be
confirmed
305 68 Cash Deposit - Suresh Kumar T. Jain Vs ITO Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-1120-60 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 164 High Court held that addition made under section 68 was to be confirmed where assessee
source not explained Court (Karnataka)/[2019] 260 Taxman 326 failed to prove that amount deposited in bank was infact loan taken from various creditors
(Karnataka)
306 68 Peak Credit CIT Vs D.K. Garg Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0804-6 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi)/[2017] The assessee, an accommodation entry provider, was unable to explain all sources of deposits
250 Taxman 104 (Delhi)/[2018] 404 ITR and corresponding payments. High Court held that he would not be entitled to benefit of peak
757 (Delhi)/[2018] 300 CTR 510 (Delhi) credit

307 68 Peak Credit CIT Vs Vijay Agricultural Allahabad High 2007 2005-LL-0221 [2007] 294 ITR 610 (Allahabad) High Court held that principle of peak credit is not applicable in case where deposits remain
Industries Court unexplained under section 68; it cannot apply in a case of different depositors where there has
been no transaction of deposits and its repayment between a particular depositor and assessee

308 68 Peak Credit Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari Vs CIT Allahabad High 2005 2005-LL-0119-9 [2005] 276 ITR 38 (Allahabad)/[2006] 202 For adjudicating upon plea of peak credit factual foundation has to be laid by assessee, who
Court CTR 515 (Allahabad) has to own all cash credit entries in books of accounts and only thereafter question of peak
credit can be raised. Where amount of cash credits were standing in names of different
persons which all along assessee had been claiming to be genuine deposit,
withdrawal/payment of amount to different set of persons would not at all entitle assessee to
claim benefit of peak credit
309 68 source not explained Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT Supreme Court 1992 1977-LL-0308 [1992] 2 SCC 378 If the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the
AO would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee
 22

310 68 Receipt by cheque Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT Guwahati High 2003 2003-LL-0902 [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati)/[2003] Merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden.
Court 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 635 The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. "It
(Gauhati) cannot be said that a transaction, which takes place by way of cheque, is invariably sacrosanct.
Once the assessee has proved the identity of his creditors, the genuineness of the transactions
which he had with his creditors, and the creditworthiness of his creditors vis-a-vis the
transactions which he had with the creditors, his burden stands discharged and the burden then
shifts to the revenue to show that though covered by cheques, the amounts in question,
actually belonged to, or was owned by the assessee himself "

311 68 false evidence CIT Vs N Tarika Properties Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-1128-71 [2013] 40 taxmann.com 525 (Delhi)/[2014] 1. Where false evidence had been adduced by assessee to give colour of genuineness to
Investment (P.) Ltd 221 Taxman 14 (Delhi)/[2014] 264 CTR 472 bogus entries through bank accounts and deposits which were mostly by cash, Assessing
(Delhi) Officer was justified in making addition under section 68 2. PANs are issued without de-facto
verification, these can't solely divulge real identity of individual
312 68 false evidence N Tarika Properties Investment Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0926-126 [2014] 51 taxmann.com 387 (SC)/[2014] Assessing Officer found that subscribers bank account statements were forged and fabricated
(P.) Ltd Vs CIT 227 Taxman 373 (SC) as there were corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts before issue of share application
cheques and that deposits were through cash or transfer entries from same bank of entry
operators. High Court by impugned order held that since false evidence had been adduced by
assessee to give colour of genuineness to bogus entries through bank accounts and deposits
which were mostly by cash, Assessing Officer was justified in making addition. SLP of
assessee dismissed
313 68 identity and capacity CIT Vs Nipun Builders & Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-0107-25 [2013] 30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi)/[2013] The assessee failed to prove identity and capacity of subscriber companies to pay share
not proved Developers (P.) Ltd 214 Taxman 429 (Delhi)/[2013] 350 ITR application money. High Court held that amount so received was liable to be taxed under
407 (Delhi)/[2013] 256 CTR 34 (Delhi) section 68

314 68 share capital from CIT Vs Nova Promoters & Delhi High Court 2013 2012-LL-0215-4 [2012] 18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that amount received by assessee from accommodation entry providers in garb
accommodation entry Finlease (P) Ltd 206 Taxman 207 (Delhi)/[2012] 342 ITR of share application money, was to be added to its taxable income under section 68
providers 169 (Delhi)/[2012] 252 CTR 187 (Delhi)

315 68 notices received CIT Vs Ultra Modern Exports Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-1211-26 [2013] 40 taxmann.com 458 (Delhi)/[2014] In order to ascertain genuineness of assessee's claim relating to receipt of share application
unserved (P.) Ltd 220 Taxman 165 (Delhi)(MAG.) money, Assessing Officer sent notices to share applicants which returned unserved. However,
assessee still managed to secure documents such as their income tax returns as well as bank
account particulars. High Court held that in such circumstances, Assessing Officer was justified
in drawing adverse inference and adding amount in question to assessee's taxable income
under section 68
316 68 incorrect details CIT Vs Frostair (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0824-196 [2012] 26 taxmann.com 11 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that where details furnished by assessee about share applicants were
210 Taxman 221 (Delhi)(MAG.) incorrect, addition under section 68 was proper

317 68 cash deposit - details Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) Vs P&H High Court 2014 2014-LL-0512-32 [2014] 46 taxmann.com 340 (Punjab & In respect of huge amount of cash deposited in bank, assessee failed to give list of persons
not furnished CIT Haryana)/[2014] 224 Taxman 178 (Punjab who advanced cash to him along with their confirmation in respect of said cash credits. High
& Haryana)(MAG.) Court held that Assessing Officer was justified in adding said amount to assessee's taxable
income under section 68
318 68 Gifts - confirmation Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs CIT Chattisgarh High 2010 2010-LL-1020-2 20 taxmann.com 806 (Chhattisgarh)/[2011] High Court held that where assessee failed to produce confirmation of gifts by donors, addition
not produced Court 332 ITR 185 (Chhattisgarh)/[2011] 240 CTR made under section 68 as unexplained cash credit was justified
229
319 68 Gifts - Laxmandas Sujandas Dalpat Vs Gujarat High Court 2015 2015-LL-0825-1 64 taxmann.com 180 (Gujarat)/[2016] 236 The assessee did not have any close relation with alleged donors and no cogent material had
creditworthiness not ITO Taxman 372 (Gujarat)/[2016] 381 ITR 283 been brought on record to prove their financial capacity. High Court held that gifts received by
proved (Gujarat)/[2016] 287 CTR 666 assessee in his capital account could not be treated as genuine and would be added to his
income under section 68
320 68 creditworthiness not Mukesh Shaw Vs ITO Jharkhand High 2011 2011-LL-0923-241 18 taxmann.com 18 (Jharkhand)/[2012] 204 High Court held that merely because identity of creditor is disclosed burden of assessee to
proved Court Taxman 615 (Jharkhand)/[2012] 246 CTR explain money in his hands would not stand discharged if AO is satisfied that donor has no
82 creditworthiness
321 creditworthiness not CIT Vs Oasis Hospitalities (P.) Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0131 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 179 (Delhi)/[2011] "The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the
proved Ltd. 198 Taxman 247 (Delhi)/[2011] 333 ITR mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their
119 (Delhi)/[2011] 238 CTR 402 (Delhi) creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three
ingredients are established prima facie, the department is required to undertake further
exercise."
322 68 creditworthiness not CIT Vs Maithan International Calcutta High 2015 2015-LL-0121-1 56 taxmann.com 283 (Calcutta)/[2015] 231 Assessing Officer could not accept genuineness of loan taken by assessee from various
proved Court Taxman 381 (Calcutta)/[2015] 375 ITR 123 creditors merely on basis of their bank statements and letter of confirmations as he was
(Calcutta)/[2015] 277 CTR required to examine creditworthiness of said creditors as well
323 68 Non compliance of CIT Vs N R Portfolio Pvt Ltd Delhi High Court 21.12.2012 2012-LL-1221-167 [2013] 29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi)/[2013] The assessee, a share broker, received certain amount from share applicants and they did not
summons 214 Taxman 408 (Delhi)/[2013] 263 CTR attend investigation proceedings despite summons under section 131. High Court held that
456 (Delhi) addition of said amount to income of assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68
was justified
 23

324 68 no compliance to CIT Vs Empire Builtech (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0127-92 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 269 (Delhi)/[2015] High Court held that u/s 68 it is not sufficient for assessee to merely disclose address and
133(6) notice 228 Taxman 346 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 366 identities of shareholders; it has to show genuineness of such individuals or entities
ITR 110 (Delhi)

325 68 cash credit & CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari & Co. Allahabad High 2013 2013-LL-0530-38 [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 In an appropriate case, Assessing Officer can make addition in respect of both cash credits
business income Court (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 under section 68 as well as business income estimated by him under section 44AD after
(Allahabad)(MAG.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 rejecting books of account maintained by assessee finding those books as unreliable
(Allahabad)
326 68 Non compliance of CIT Vs MAF Academy (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-1128-69 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi)/[2014] 224 The assessee, a private limited company, sold its shares to unrelated parties at a huge
summons (Accomodation entry from Taxman 212 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 361 ITR premium and thereupon within short span of time those shares were purchased back even at a
Mahesh Garg) 258 (Delhi)/[2014] 265 CTR 6 loss. High Court held that share transactions in question were to be regarded as bogus and,
thus, amount received from said transactions was to be added to assesee's taxable income
under section 68
327 68 cash deposit before CIT Vs Focus Exports (P.) Ltd Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0916-42 [2014] 51 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/[2015] In respect of share application money, assessee failed to provide complete address and PAN of
issue of cheque 228 Taxman 88 (Delhi)(MAG.) certain share applicants whereas in case of some of share applicants, there were transactions
of deposits and immediate withdrawals of money from bank. High Court held that impugned
addition made under section 68 was to be confirmed
328 68 cash deposit before Indus Valley Promoters Ltd Vs Delhi High Court 2008 2008-LL-0401-4 [2008] 174 Taxman 516 (Delhi)/[2008] 305 Assessing Officer noticed an increase in share application money account as compared to
issue of cheque CIT ITR 202 (Delhi) preceding assessment year, and vis-a-vis account of ‘S’, director of assessee-company, it was
noticed that a sum of Rs. 11.82 lakhs had been received during year under consideration. He
also noticed that, in fact, no shares were allotted to ‘S’ during previous year and share
application money retained same form and character even in two subsequent years. On being
asked, assessee contended that all amounts credited in name of ‘S’ had come directly from
account of ‘S’ in firm ‘I’ in which ‘S’ was a partner. Assessing Officer took view that when ‘S’
was director in assessee-company having a regular account, same cash deposit could have
been made in books of assessee- company and method of choosing circuitous path was only
an attempt to circumvent provisions of section 68 which was confirmed by High Court

329 68 ITAT cannot delete CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0311-4 56 taxmann.com 286, 231 Taxman 384, In case of unaccounted entries found in books of account of assessee, though it is obligation of
addition on ground of & Marketing (P.) Ltd 375 ITR 373 Assessing Officer to conduct proper scrutiny of material, in event of Assessing Officer failing to
lack of inquiry discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry shifts to Commissioner
(Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by Assessing Officer on
ground of lack of inquiry
330 68 Cheques not Vimal Organics Ltd. Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0518-39 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 427 Cheques received by assessee from various creditors were not presented for collection in
presented for Court (Allahabad)/[2017] 248 Taxman 457 banks, still amount mentioned in those cheques were found credited in assessee's books of
collection (Allahabad)/[2017] 297 CTR 549 account. Addition u/s 68 was confirmed
(Allahabad)
331 68 creditworthiness not B.R. Petrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO Madras High Court 2017 2017-LL-0424-62 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 424 The assessee received share capital from various contributors. High Court held that in view of
proved (Madras)/[2018] 407 ITR 87 (Madras) fact that those contributors were persons of insignificant means and their creditworthiness to
have made contributions had not been established, impugned addition made by authoirties
below in respect of amount in question under section 68 was to be confirmed.

332 68 creditworthiness not Rick Lunsford Trade & Calcutta High 2017 2016-LL-0617-138 [2016] 385 ITR 399 (Cal) In this case, the assessee did not produce books of account or bank accounts or shareholders’
proved Investment Ltd Vs CIT Court register. Eight out of fifty six persons from shareholders’ list provided by assessee denied
subscription. Remaining notices returned with endorsement ”not known”. High Court held that
unexplained share application money was rightly treated as assessee’s income

333 68 creditworthiness not Rick Lunsford Trade & Supreme Court 2017 2016-LL-1121 2016-TIOL-207-SC-IT Supreme Court dismissed SLP upholding that it is open to the Revenue Department to make
proved Investment Ltd Vs CIT addition on account of alleged share capital u/s 68, where the assessee company has failed to
show genuineness of its shareholders
334 68 Lovely exports Navodaya Castle Pvt Ltd Vs Supreme Court 2017 2015-LL-0116-122 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC)/[2015] 230 Supreme Court dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that certificate of incorporation, PAN
distinguished CIT (Accomodation entry from Taxman 268 (SC) etc., are not sufficient for purpose of identification of subscriber company when there is material
Mahesh Garg) to show that subscriber was a paper company and not a genuine investor

335 68 Lovely exports CIT Vs Navodaya Castle Pvt Delhi High Court 2017 2014-LL-0825-48 [2014] 50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi)/[2014] Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) was also considered and distinguished in N.R. Portfolio (P.)
distinguished Ltd (Accomodation entry from 226 Taxman 190 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2014] 367 Ltd. (supra) and it was held that the entire evidence available on record has to be considered,
Mahesh Garg) ITR 306 (Delhi) after relying upon CIT v. Nipun Builders and Developers [2013] 350 ITR 407/214 Taxman
429/30 taxmann.com 292 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that a reasonable approach has to
be adopted and whether initial onus stands discharged would depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case. In case of private limited companies, generally persons known to
directors or shareholders. An assessee cannot simply furnish some details and remain quiet
when summons issued to shareholders remain un-served and uncomplied
 24

336 68 cash deposit addition Shri Arunkumar J Muchhala Vs Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0824 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 306 In this case, even after giving adequate opportunities, the assessee failed to maintain and
u/s 68 CIT Court (Bombay)/[2017] 250 Taxman 362 produce books with respect to NRI gift received. It was held that such receipt is to be treated as
(Bombay)/[2017] 399 ITR 256 (Bombay), unexplained cash credit u/s 68.It was held that when Appellant is doing business, then it was
2017-TIOL-1666-HC-MUM-IT incumbent on him to maintain proper books of account. Therefore, if he had not maintained it,
then he can not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.

337 68 identities & Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-1129-8 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 189 (Allahabad) Additions u/s 68 warrant being sustained where the identities & creditworthiness of investors in
creditworthiness not Court the assessee company are not established by the assessee & are also proved incorrect by the
established Department's Assessee Information System. In such circumstances, assessee cannot resist the
additions on grounds that it did not have opportunity to cross-examine relevant witnesses. An
assessee company cannot hide behind the shell of a corporate entity to feign ignorance
regarding the identity of any person who invests in its share capital. The investors were found
to be non existent from field inquiry as well as notices issued u/s 133(6)

338 68 identities & Prem Castings (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 Not Available 2018-TIOL-274-SC-IT Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee
creditworthiness not
established
339 68 supply of goods Rekha Krishnaraj Vs ITO Karnataka High 2013 2013-LL-0313-4 [2013] 33 taxmann.com 64 Addition under section 68 can be made even for an unexplained credit amount on account of
Court (Karnataka)/[2013] 215 Taxman 159 supply of goods, and not necessarily only for a cash credit. SLP dismissed by Supreme Court
(Karnataka)/[2013] 261 CTR 79 on account of delay
(Karnataka), 2013-TIOL-292-HC-KAR-IT
340 68 Non compliance of Konark Structural Engineering Bombay High 2018 2017-LL-1205-38 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bombay)/[2018] The assessee-company received certain amount as share capital from various shareholders.
summons (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT Court 254 Taxman 184 (Bombay) High Court held that in view of fact that summons served to shareholders under section 131
were unserved with remark that addressees were not available, and, moreover, those
shareholders were first time assessees and were not earning enough income to make deposits
in question, impugned addition made by AO under sec. 68, was to be confirmed

341 68 Non compliance of Konark Structural Engineering Supreme Court 2018 2017-LL-1205-38 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 255 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee.The assessee-company received certain
summons (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT 257 Taxman 262 (SC) amount as share capital from various shareholders. High Court held that in view of fact that
summons served to shareholders under section 131 were unserved with remark that
addressees were not available, and, moreover, those shareholders were first time assessees
and were not earning enough income to make deposits in question, impugned addition made by
AO under sec. 68, was to be confirmed
342 68 investors not DRB Exports (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0507-44 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 490 (Calcutta) The AO made addition under section 68 in respect of increase in share capital of assessee-
traceable Court company. High Court held that in view of fact that addresses of most of purported shareholders
were identical and they could not be traced out despite notice issued under section 131,
Tribunal was justified in confirming impugned addition
343 68 Non compliance of J J Development Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0627-30 2018-TIOL-1439-HC-KOL-IT The assessee failed to provide a convincing explanation with regard to the cash credit before
summons Court the AO and the same was accepted by the ITAT being a fact finding body. High Court held that
the same cannot be disputed further
344 68 Non compliance of J J Development Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1029 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 102 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court upheld Tribunal's order confirming
summons 259 Taxman 414 (SC), 2018-TIOL-395-SC- addition under section 68 in respect of share capital on ground that documents pertaining to
IT, share applicants produced by assessee did not demonstrate that such alleged applicants had
invested in assessee's share capital.
345 68 investors not PRATHAM TELECOM INDIA Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0917-26 2018-TIOL-1983-HC-MUM-IT Mere production of PAN numbers & bank statements is not sufficient enough to discharge the
traceable PVT LTD VS DCIT Court burden on taxpayer to escape the realms of Section 68
346 68 accomodation entry PCIT Vs NDR Promoters Pvt Delhi High Court 2019 2019-LL-0117-37 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 182 (Delhi)/[2019] The Assessing Officer made additions to assessee's income u/s 68 in respect of amount
from operator Ltd 261 Taxman 270 (Delhi)/[2019] 410 ITR received as share capital from several companies. High Court held that in view of fact that all of
379 (Delhi), 2019-TIOL-172-HC-DEL-IT these companies were maintained by one person who was engaged in providing
accommodation entries through paper companies and all such companies were located at
same address, impugned addition was justified
347 68 peak credit Alfa Bhoj Ltd. Vs DCIT (Peak Delhi High Court 2019 2019-LL-0116-32 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) The Managing Director/partners of all such companies/firms from whom capital recieved were
Credit) examined on oath and all of them accepted that they were name lenders on commission basis.
The assessee raised a plea that addition made to its taxable income under section 68 in
respect of bogus share capital should be restricted to a lower amount because said amount
kept rotating in relevant year. High Court held that in view of fact that amount in question was
not returned or refunded, plea raised by assessee deserved to be rejected.
 25

348 68 Non compliance of PCIT Vs NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0305-15 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC)/[2019] The Assessee received share capital/premium and submitted that it had been received through
summons Ltd. 262 Taxman 74 (SC)/[2019] 412 ITR 161 normal banking channels by account payee cheques/demand drafts, and produced documents
(SC) such as income tax return acknowledgments to establish the identity and genuineness of the
transaction. The AO had issued summons to investor companies against which submissions
were received through dak. Supreme Court held that there was failure of assessee to establish
creditworthiness of investor companies, AO was justified in making additions u/s 68. Inquiry
revealed that some of the investor companies were non-existent. Investor companies had filed
returns for a negligible taxable income, which would show that the investors did not have the
financial capacity to invest funds. No explanation for high premium was offered

349 68 Sales J.M.J. Essential Oil Company HP High Court 2018 2018-LL-1105 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 181 (Himachal The assessee had sold a new product launched by it on test market basis over and above its
Vs CIT Pradesh)/[2018] 259 Taxman 546 counter sale. Since it failed to explain as to how and why such cash sales of huge amount
(Himachal Pradesh) effected only in one month of a year, AO was justified in making additions in respect of such
unexplained sales under section 68
350 68 Cross Examination CIT Vs Kuwer Fibers (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-1020-88 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi) "As far as the question relating to cross examination is concerned, the court notices that though
the documents were furnished to the assessee, it had not sought opportunity of cross
examination; this was made at the fag end, in March, 1997. This court finds no justification to
reject the statements, which merely explain the documents seized; the assessee could well
have given a full explanation instead of seeking rejection of the documents on the ground that
they were prepared in the context of a family dispute leading to a settlement."

351 68 Cross Examination M/s Pebble Investment And Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0705 2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT "so far as request for cross examination is concerned, we find that Assessee, during the first
Finance Ltd Vs ITO round of proceedings before the AO did not raise any such issue. At that point of time, the
person who made the statement, could have been produced by the AO. It was only in the
second round of proceedings when the Assessee was not able to contact the Director of M/s.
Omega, that they came up with a request for his cross examination. Therefore, the submission
on part of the assessee that the delay has led to it being unable to produce evidence is of no
avail as the delay was in seeking cross examination by it."

352 68 Cross Examination ITO Vs M. Pirai Choodi Supreme Court 2010 2010-LL-1119-3 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC)/[2011] Order of assessment passed without granting an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine,
334 ITR 262 (SC)/[2011] 245 CTR 233 (SC) should not have been set aside by High Court; at most, High Court should have directed
Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine concerned witness

353 68 Cross Examination Roger Enterprises (P.) Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0722-1 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 167 (SC) Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where evidence of
CIT one of two witnesses was by itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against assessee that
commission payments made by it were fictitious, refusal by assessee to cross-examine said
witness must follow that assessee had accepted said witness and commission payments were
rightly disallowed
354 68 Penny Stock Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0410-80 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) The assessee had purchased shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a
Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs Court (Nagpur year sold such shares at much higher amount. He had not tendered cogent evidence to explain
PCIT Bench) as to how shares in an unknown company had jumped to such higher amount in no time and
also failed to provide details of person who purchased said shares. High Court held that said
transactions were attempt to hedge undisclosed income as Long term Capital gain

355 68 Penny Stock Chandan Gupta Vs CIT P&H High Court 2015 2014-LL-0916-59 [2015] 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & The assessee could not explain receipt of alleged share transactions profits credited in his bank
Haryana)/[2015] 229 Taxman 173 accounts. High Court held that sale proceeds had to be added as income of assessee under
section 68
356 68 Penny Stock Balbir Chand Maini Vs CIT P&H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0405-1 [2011] 12 taxmann.com 276 (Punjab & Assessee had purchased certain shares of a company at rate between Rs. 2.50 and Rs. 3.40
Haryana)/[2011] 201 Taxman 94 (Punjab & per share in month of April, 1997 and part of those shares were sold through a broker at Rs. 55
Haryana)(MAG.)/[2012] 340 ITR 161 per share. AO recorded statement of broker who admitted to have purchased shares in
(Punjab & Haryana)/[2012] 247 CTR 468 question but failed to produce books of account and other relevant documents. The alleged
(Punjab & Haryana) sale of shares had not taken place through any stock exchange. Broker could not give details
of purchaser of shares. Addition held to be justified
357 68 Penny Stock Udit Kalra Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2019 2019-LL-0308-79 2019-TIOL-751-HC-DEL-IT "What is intriguing is that the company (M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd.) had meagre resources and in
fact reported consistent losses. In these circumstances, the astronomical growth of the value of
company’s shares naturally excited the suspicions of the Revenue. The company was even
directed to be delisted from the stock exchange. Addition on account of Penny Stock confirmed

358 68 Bogus Purchase N K Proteins Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0116 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where purchases
250 Taxman 22 (SC), 2017-TIOL-23-SC-IT shown on basis of fictitious invoices was debited in trading account, entire purchases deserved
to be added to total income
359 68 Bogus Purchase N K Proteins Ltd Vs CIT Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0920-69 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 241 Addition on basis of undisclosed income cannot be restricted to a certain percentage, when the
(Gujarat)/[2016] 389 ITR 541 (Gujarat), entire transaction was found as bogus
2016-TIOL-3165-HC-AHM-IT
 26

360 68 Bogus Purchase CIT Vs La Medica Delhi High Court 2001 2001-LL-0315 [2001] 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 The Assessee failed to produce evidence to prove bona fides of seller from whom it claimed to
ITR 575 (Delhi)/[2001] 168 CTR 314 (Delhi) have purchased raw material. AO treated value of raw material as assessee’s income from
undisclosed sources. Once it was accepted that supplies were not made by said supplier to
whom payments were alleged to have been made, question of purchases having been made
from some other source could not have weighed with Tribunal as a factor in assessee’s favour.

361 69 addition on account Allied Strips Ltd Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0517-114 2017-TIOL-1160-HC-DEL-IT Estimate of production cycle based on past production figures of Assessee, is reasonable and
of production cycle does not warrant interference
362 69 source of cash for Mahabeer Prasad Jain Vs ACIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-1109-1 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 9 The assessee had purchased drafts by depositing cash but failed to provide source of said
bank draft Court (Allahabad)/[2018] 253 Taxman 152 cash utilised to make such investment. High Court held that additions made under section 69
(Allahabad)/[2017] 399 ITR 600 (Allahabad) was justified

363 69 statement of entry Rajnish Jain Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-1201-5 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 220 In this case, share broker made statement that he had provided accommodation entries to
provider Court (Allahabad)/[2018] 402 ITR 12 (Allahabad) assessee and further before Assessing Authority, assessee had surrendered entire amount
received on sale of shares subject to non-initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). High
Court held that additions made to income of assessee was justified
364 69 158BC source of investment R. Mallika Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0210-1 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 117 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where assessee had
not proved 246 Taxman 59 (SC) not discharged burden as regards source from which investment had been made, investment in
property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee

365 69 158BC source of investment CIT Vs R. Mallika Madras High Court 2013 2013-LL-0617-57 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 231 The assessee had purchased a property for Rs. 22 lakhs and she had not discharged burden
not proved (Madras)/[2013] 219 Taxman 244 (Madras) as regards source from which investment had been made. High Court held that investment in
property was an unexplained investment and same was rightly added to income of assessee

366 69 unexplained Amit Polyprints (P.) Ltd. Vs P&H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0922-31 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 199 (Punjab & High Court upheld addition on account of unaccounted sale and unexplained investment in
investment in working DCIT Haryana)/[2012] 204 Taxman 19 (Punjab & working capital
capital Haryana)(MAG.)
367 69 Extrapolation Surinder Kumar Vs CIT P&H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0406-44 [2012] 21 taxmann.com 80 (Punjab & In this case, seized documents showed unrecorded sales. High Court held that mere fact that
Haryana)/[2012] 340 ITR 173 (Punjab & such documents pertained to only for 112 days could not be a ground to challenge addition
Haryana) made on such material for entire year
368 69 entries in loose slips Thiru S Shyam Kumar Vs ACIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1010-92 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 39 (Madras), 2018- Addition made as undisclosed income u/s 69 on the basis of clear and legible material is fully
TIOL-2326-HC-MAD-IT justified and cannot be challenged by the assessee on the basis of retraction, which is vague
and clear afterthought. Where entries in loose slips were clear and legible pointing out on-
money payment for purchase of property by assessee, addition under section 69 was justified

369 69 unaccounted Pradeep Kumar Biyani Vs ITO Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1204-5 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 131 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court upheld Tribunal's order confirming
business receipts 260 Taxman 298 (SC) addition made to assessee's income in respect of unaccounted business receipts having regard
to fact that gross profit declared by assessee was much lesser than profit in said line of
business. Moreover assessee had failed to provide stock register despite several opportunities.

370 69A 158BC Extrapolation Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2015 2015-LL-1030-28 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 66 (Bombay)/[2016] Loose papers found during search indicated on money receipt by assessee on sale of stenter
DCIT (Extrapolation of on Court 236 Taxman 420 (Bombay)/[2015] 379 ITR machines for part of block period 1989-96. This evidence was extrapolated to conclude on
money) 160 (Bombay) money receipt during remaining block period 1986-89 also. High court upheld the addition.

371 69A 71 no setoff agsint Kim Pharma (P) Ltd v. CIT P&H 2011 2011-LL-0427-188 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 456 (Punjab & In absence of cash found during survey being recorded in books and source explained, the
undisclsoed income Haryana)/[2013] 216 Taxman 153 (Punjab same though surrendered, was not assessable as business income but only as deemed income
found in survey & Haryana)(MAG.)/[2013] 258 CTR 454 u/s 69A and therefore no set off of b/f business losses was permitted against such income.
(Punjab & Haryana) Income falling in nature of 68, 69 69A fall as deemed income u/s 14 and hence no set off of b/f
losses is permissible. Note: This may be used to disallow set off of losses for AY prior to
insertion of 115BBE w.e.f 1/4/2017. Also see Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT [2001] 247 ITR
290(Guj
372 69A Bogus Purchase CIT Vs Arun Malhotra Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-1125-11 [2014] 47 taxmann.com 385 (Delhi)/[2014] AO found that transaction of purchase and sale were bogus and made addition u/s 69A. High
363 ITR 195 (Delhi Court held that Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition without going into evidence on
record
373 69A Bogus Purchase Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs CIT Allahabad High 2005 2005-LL-0301-3 [2007] 294 ITR 316 (Allahabad) The Assessing Officer had recorded a finding that in order to lower profits, bogus purchases
Court had been introduced and Tribunal upheld such finding. High Court held that addition on account
of disallowance of such purchases was justified
374 69A Bogus Purchase Vijay Proteins Ltd Vs CIT Gujarat High Court 2014 2014-LL-1209-4 [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) High Court held that Tribunal was justified in disallowing 25 per cent of purchase price where
assessee had inflated expenditure by showing higher purchase price through fictitious invoices
in name of 33 fictitious parties
375 69A unaccounted sales S. Rudramuniyappa Vs CIT Karnataka High 2015 2015-LL-0730-124 [2015] 64 taxmann.com 411 (Karnataka) Addition made on basis of seized documents containing unaccounted sales was justified
Court
376 69A unaccounted sales S. Rudramuniyappa Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-1020-1 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 241 (SC)/[2016] SLP dismissed on ground of delay. High Court upheld addition made on basis of seized
243 Taxman 353 (SC) documents containing unaccounted sales
 27

377 69A source of cash not Sukh Ram Vs ACIT Delhi High Court 2006 2006-LL-0602-4 159 Taxman 385 (Delhi)/[2006] 285 ITR Pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was
proved 256 (Delhi)/[2006] 204 CTR 336 found. The assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organisation but did not
bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification of
books of account of said organization showed no connection with cash recovered from
assessee. High Court held that assessee was to be treated as owner of said cash, and same
was to be added to income of assessee under section 69A
378 69A retraction not valid PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0501-43 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi)/[2017] The assessee surrendered certain income during survey. He confirmed same by way of
248 Taxman 106 (Delhi)/[2017] 395 ITR declaration after two months. Two years later assessee he withdrew said declaration. High
235 (Delhi) Court upheld the addition for withdrawing the declaration without any satisfactory explanation.
(SURVEY CASE)
379 69A source of cash not Ashokbhai H Jariwala Vs ACIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0703-12 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 196 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. There was nothing on record to show that
proved 250 Taxman 14 (SC), 2017-TIOL-236-SC- sister of assessee was in exclusive possession of bedroom in assessee's house from where
IT cash was seized. Moreover, there was contradiction in statement of assessee and his sister
with respect to ownership of actual amount in cash. High Court had held that seized cash would
be included as unexplained income in hand of assessee under section 69A.

380 69A source of cash not Ashokbhai H Jariwala Vs ACIT Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0306-35 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 175 There was nothing on record to show that sister of assessee was in exclusive possession of
proved (Gujarat)/[2017] 399 ITR 181 (Gujarat), bedroom in assessee's house from where cash was seized. Moreover, there was contradiction
2017-TIOL-522-HC-AHM-IT in statement of assessee and his sister with respect to ownership of actual amount in cash.
High Court had that seized cash would be included as unexplained income in hand of assessee
under section 69A.
381 69A source of jewellery Karun Dutt Singh Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-0823-4 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 177 (Kerala)/[2017] The AO made addition to assessee's income in respect of gold ornaments recovered from him
not proved 250 Taxman 419 (Kerala)/[2017] 398 ITR after rejecting his explanation that it belonged to his employer company. High Court confirmed
374 (Kerala) the addition in view of fact that director of employer company in his statement recorded under
sec. 131 denied to have given ornaments to assessee for sale or as samples

382 69A source not proved Smt. Sangeetha Jain Vs ACIT Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-1128-36 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 90 The assessee challenged addition made by AO to her income on account of unexplained cash
Court (Karnataka)/[2019] 261 Taxman 220 credit contending that said amount represented rental receipts. High Court confirmed the
(Karnataka) addition since assessee did not furnish description of property, rental agreement, name and
address of tenants, sources of investment, etc.
383 69A creditworthiness not Shree Krishana Kripa Feeds Vs P&H High Court 2018 2018-LL-1101-45 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 162 (Punjab & The assessee accepted unsecured loans from three parties. It failed to prove creditworthiness
proved, amount CIT Haryana)/[2019] 260 Taxman 337 (Punjab of said parties and, moreover, amount had been deposited to bank accounts of those parties on
deposited on cheque & Haryana)/[2019] 410 ITR 533 (Punjab & same day when cheques were issued to assessee. High Court held that addition made u/s 69A
issue date Haryana) in respect of loan amount was to be confirmed
384 69A estimated addition Arvind Janardhan Pandey Vs Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0305-64 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 127 A search was carried out in course of which it was found that assessee was engaged in activity
ITO Court (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 401 of ensuring admissions of students in educational institutions by paying illegal capitation fees.
(Bombay) High Court held that since assessee did not bring any material on record to enable revenue
authorities to determine assessee's earning from said dealings, addition made to his income by
authorities below on estimate basis was to be confirmed

385 69B statements CIT Vs Kuwer Fibers (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-1020-88 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 345 (Delhi) High Court held that where statements recorded were corroborated by materials, there was no
corraborated by justification to reject statements, which merely explain documents seized. Once raw material
material found in quantity that did not appear in regular books of account was discovered and could be inferred
search as a result of search, onus lay upon assessee to furnish full particulars as to cost of that raw
material or average cost
386 69B sale suppression CIT Vs Archana Trading Co Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0710-70 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 339 (Kerala)/[2018] In this case, there was no restriction with respect to price for which liquor had to be sold. It was
257 Taxman 386 (Kerala) found during survey that assessee-bar had sold liquor in excess of price shown in return since
price was variable. High Court held that sale suppression detected during survey could be said
to be actual price for which liquor was sold
387 69B 158BD undisclosed money Prakash Chand Dhadda Vs Rajasthan High 2017 2017-LL-0609-65 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 214 In search of third party, certain currency notes were seized bearing assessee jeweller's name
lending ITSC Court (Rajasthan)/[2017] 249 Taxman 131 with coded figures. In absence of any entry in books of account substantiating claim of
(Rajasthan)/[2017] 298 CTR 467 purchase of emerald from said party, Settlement Commission was justified in holding that it was
(Rajasthan) a case of undisclosed money lending for purpose of earning interest
388 69C unexplained Kahan Udyog Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-0814-170 [2013] 38 taxmann.com 261 (Delhi)/[2013] High Court held that where appellant failed to explain purpose and nature of expenditure
expenditure 219 Taxman 23 (Delhi)(MAG.) disclosed in search and same was also not recorded in books of account, addition was to be
made under section 69C
389 69C fictitious commission Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0204-2 [2016] 67 taxmann.com 344 (Delhi)/[2016] High Court held that where evidence of one of two witnesses was by itself sufficient to draw
payments 238 Taxman 434 (Delhi)/[2016] 382 ITR adverse inference against assessee that commission payments made by it were fictitious and
639 (Delhi) assessee declined to cross-examine said witness on ground that it had to be preceded by cross-
examination of other witness, it must follow that assessee had accepted said witness and
commission payments were rightly disallowed
 28

390 69C fictitious commission Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0722-1 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 167 (SC) Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where evidence of
payments one of two witnesses was by itself sufficient to draw adverse inference against assessee that
commission payments made by it were fictitious and assessee declined to cross-examine said
witness on ground that it had to be preceded by cross-examination of other witness, it must
follow that assessee had accepted said witness and commission payments were rightly
disallowed
391 69C bogus purchase bills Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0911-59 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 234 On basis of information received from Sales Tax authorities, Assessing Officer found that
Court (Bombay)/[2018] 259 Taxman 49 (Bombay) assessee was beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material
purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier. High Court held that AO was
unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio
392 69C bogus purchases Shree Krishana Kripa Feeds Vs P&H High Court 2018 2018-LL-1101-45 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 162 (Punjab & The assessee made purchases from two parties. In view of fact that as per Inspector's report,
CIT Haryana)/[2019] 260 Taxman 337 (Punjab there was no concern existing at given address and, moreover, in bills of said parties, there
& Haryana)/[2019] 410 ITR 533 (Punjab & were no sales tax number/TIN number or CIN number, revenue authorities were justified in
Haryana) treating said purchases as bogus and making addition under section 69C to assessee's income
in respect of amount in question
393 69C bogus purchases Pooja Paper Trading Co (P.) Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0225-56 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 95 (Bombay) The assessee was trading in paper and paper products. Lower authorities including Tribunal
Ltd. Vs ITO Court having found that assessee was involved in hawala transactions and substantial purchases
made by it were bogus in nature, disallowed certain purchases and added same in income of
assessee as unexplained expenditure under section 69C. High Court held that extent of
disallowance in present facts did not give rise to any substantial question of law

394 72 interest earned on Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-0708-12 [1997] 93 Taxman 502 (SC)/[1997] 227 ITR Supreme Court held that interest earned on short-term investment of funds borrowed for setting-
funds borrowed for Fertilizers Ltd. Vs CIT 172 (SC)/[1997] 141 CTR 387 (SC) up of factory during construction of factory before commencement of business has to be
setting-up of factory assessed as income from other sources. It cannot be said that interest income is not taxable on
ground that it would go to reduce interest on borrowed amount which would be capitalised

395 Ganesh Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0329-166 [2019] 106 taxmann.com 62 (Bombay) Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim for carry forward of loss on ground that return was
GOI Court not filed within time prescribed under section 139(1). ITAT directed assessee to seek
condonation of delay in filing return from CBDT, in view of fact that assessee did not file
application for condonation of delay even before CBDT within permissible time limit. High Court
held that impugned order passed by CBDT rejecting assessee's application on ground of
limitation and latches, did not require any interference
396 72A waiver of interest Mcdowell & Company Ltd Vs Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0309-42 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 101 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that amalgamation necessarily leads to complete destruction of corporate
during amalgamation CIT 247 Taxman 101 (SC)/[2017] 393 ITR 570 personality of a company. When the assessee had availed the benefit of setting off
(SC), 2017-TIOL-175-SC-IT accumulated losses of the amalgamating company u/s 72A, the waiver of interest on loans
taken from FIs is to be treated as taxable income u/s 41(1)
397 73 loss from derivatives CIT Vs DLF Commercial Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-0711-44 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 280 (Delhi)/[2013] High Court held that where by all accounts derivatives were based on stocks and shares, which
speculative Developers Ltd 218 Taxman 45 (Delhi)/[2013] 261 CTR 127 fall squarely within Explanation to section 73, loss from sale-purchase of such derivative would
(Delhi) be speculative loss, which could not be permitted to be carried forward

398 73 loss on sale of Inderjeet Trade Link (P.) Ltd Vs Delhi High Court 2007 2007-LL-0223-10 [2007] 162 Taxman 12 (Delhi) High Court held that where assessee’s principal business activity was dealing in shares, any
shares CIT loss incurred by it on sale of shares could not be set off against interest income
399 73 loss on sale of CIT Vs Eureka Stock & Share Calcua High Court 2016 2016-LL-0830-31 [2016] 74 taxmann.com 114 High Court held that where assessee incurred loss on account of sale and purchase of shares,
shares Broking Services Ltd (Calcutta)/[2017]291CTR313(Calcutta) which had no connection with its business as a share broker, said loss would be treated as
speculation loss which could not be set off against brokerage income earned as sharebroker

400 73 set off of speculation Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd. Calcua High Court 2010 2010-LL-1005-36 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 213 (Calcutta)/[2011] By virtue of legal fiction mentioned in Explanation to section 73, assessee-company would not
loss Vs CIT 198 Taxman 83 (Calcutta)/[2011] 338 ITR be entitled to benefit of setting off or carry forward of speculation loss, except as against other
295 (Calcutta)/[2011] 239 CTR 398 speculation business and since assessee had no speculation business activity other than sale
(Calcutta) and purchase of shares, its claim of set off was rightly disallowed

401 73 Expl share dealing not CIT Vs Arvind Investments Ltd. Kerala High Court 1990 1990-LL-0309 [1991] 58 Taxman 216 (Calcutta)/[1991] Explanation to section 73 will apply only where share dealing was a part of company's business
sole business 192 ITR 365 (Calcutta)/[1991] 94 CTR 263 and not its sole business - No
(Calcutta)
402 73 Expl loss from share Eastern Aviation & Industries Kerala High Court 1993 1993-LL-0729-4 [1994] 74 Taxman 641 (Calcutta)/[1994] High Court held that where losses of assessee-company from share dealings exceeded
dealings Ltd. Vs CIT 208 ITR 1023 (Calcutta) dividend income which was chargeable under head 'Income from other sources', it could not be
treated as 'investment company' within meaning of section 109(ii). Therefore, entire loss from
share dealings, and loss of interest attributable to share dealings was loss in speculation
business within meaning of Explanation to section 73
403 74 loss in pursuance of Aberdeen Institutional Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0308-83 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 63 High Court held that before a carry forward loss can be claimed by assessee, it is necessary
a return filed u/s 139 Commingled Funds LLC Vs Court (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 346 that a loss has been determined in pursuance of a return filed for earlier assessment year
AAR (Bombay) under section 139
 29

404 80G(5) regular maintainance CIT Vs Rama Educational Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0525-45 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 513 High Court held that approval for registration under section 80G cannot be granted until and
of accounts Society Court (Allahabad)/[2017] 396 ITR 16 (Allahabad) unless institution or fund is found to be regularly maintaining accounts of its receipts and
expenditure which is essential condition for getting approval under section 80G(5) even though
institution satisfies conditions of section 10(23C)
405 80G(5) real purpose of trust Kirti Chand Tarawati Ch. Trust Delhi High Court 1998 1998-LL-0327-2 [1999] 105 Taxman 686 (Delhi)/[1998] 232 Authority conferred with power to grant approval under section 80G is not debarred from finding
Vs DIT ITR 11 (Delhi)/[1999] 152 CTR 322 (Delhi) out real purpose of trust as distinguished from ostensible purpose and if it may find that
purpose of trust was other than charitable, then nothing debars such authority from denying
approval. The assessee was found to be engaged mainly in construction of religious temple
wherein no charitable activity was being carried out. High Court held that it was rightly denied
renewal of recognition under section 80G(5)
406 80HH derived from', interest Pandian Chemicals Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2003 2003-LL-0424-10 [2003] 129 Taxman 539 (SC)/[2003] 262 Supreme Court held that words 'derived from' in section 80HH must be understood as
on deposit ITR 278 (SC)/[2003] 183 CTR 99 (SC) something which has direct or immediate nexus with an industrial undertaking. Derivation of
interest or profits on deposit with Electricity Board could not be said to be flowing directly from
industrial undertaking and, therefore, deduction for same could not be allowed

407 80HH allocation of Ema India Ltd. Ema India Ltd. Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0425-1 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 221 (Allahabad) (1) Where it was found that commission was not claimed by agent nor was it actually paid by
expenses between Vs DCIT Court assessee-company, claim of deduction of commission payment was to be disallowed (2) Where
two divisions assessee had two divisions, one of which was eligible for sections 80HH and 80-I deductions
and common expenses related to both divisions were irrationally debited in books of division
not eligible for deduction, books of account was to be rejected (3) Where actual expenditure
attributable to a division eligible to section 80HH/80-I deduction could not be quantified, profit
could not be computed correctly and assessee's claim for deduction could not be allowed

408 80HHC interest on fixed CIT Vs Jyoti Apparels Delhi High Court 2007 2007-LL-0119-4 [2008] 166 Taxman 343 (Delhi)/[2007] 209 High Court held that interest earned by an exporter on fixed deposits kept by it with bank as
deposits CTR 288 (Delhi) margin money or security for bank guarantee in order to avail of credit facility for its export
business has to be treated as 'income from other sources' and not as 'business income',
inasmuch as it does not have an immediate nexus with export business. Therefore, such
interest income cannot be considered for computing deduction under section 80HHC.

409 80HHC Gross turnover CIT Vs Inertia Industries Ltd Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0823-3 2017-TIOL-1690-HC-DEL-IT Gross turnover of entire business unit of an undertaking, are required to be considered for
purpose of calculating deduction u/s 80HHC
410 80HHC interest on fixed CIT v. Mereena Creations Delhi HC 2010 2009-LL-1030-12 [2010] 189 Taxman 71 (Delhi)/[2011] 330 High Court held that interest earned by an exporter on fixed deposits kept by it with bank as
deposits ITR 199 (Delhi) margin money or security for bank guarantee in order to avail of credit facility for its export
business has to be treated as ‘income from other sources’
411 80HHC report of an CIT Vs Pix Transmission Ltd. Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0713-24 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 490 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that question whether claim of assessee under section 80HHC was
accountant 396 ITR 695 (SC)/[2017] 298 CTR 229 (SC) justified even if he had not furnished report of an accountant along with return of income was a
substantial question of law
412 80HHC deduction with 80-IB Broadways Overseas Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0218-31 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 233 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that deduction under
CIT 262 Taxman 208 (SC) section 80HHC is to be reduced to extent it has already been allowed under section 80-IB

413 80I deduction with 80-HH CIT Vs Hindustan Level Ltd Supreme Court 2019 Interim Order [2019] 103 taxmann.com 89 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that deduction under
261 Taxman 547 (SC) section 80-I should be given on profit without reducing deduction under section 80HH

414 80IA transport subsidy CIT vs Maharani Packaging Pvt HP High Court 2011 2011-LL-0304-7 [2012] 24 taxmann.com 204 (Himachal High Court held that since transport subsidy provided to industries set up in remote areas is not
Ltd Pradesh)/[2012] 209 Taxman 49 (Himachal an operational profit, it is not eligible for deduction under section 80-IA
Pradesh)(MAG.)
415 80IA 80HHC and 80-IA Friends Castings P. Ltd. vs. CIT P &H High Court 2010 2010-LL-0920-7 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 708 (Punjab & High Court held that where both deductions are allowable under sections 80HHC and 80-IA,
Haryana)/[2012] 340 ITR 305 (Punjab & then deduction under section 80HHC is to be allowed only on balance amount which remained
Haryana)/[2011] 238 CTR 377 (Punjab & after allowing deduction under section 80-IA
Haryana)
416 80IA initial assessment CIT vs Nestor Pharmaceauticals Delhi High Court 2009 2009-LL-1223-9 [2010] 322 ITR 631 (Delhi)/[2010] 231 CTR High Court held that initial assessment year for 80IA is the year of commercial production and
year Ltd. 337 (Delhi) not trial production
417 80IA advances forfeited; CIT Vs. Jackson Engineers Ltd Delhi High Court 2009 2009-LL-1223-60 [2012] 341 ITR 518 (Delhi)/[2010] 231 CTR High Court held that advances received from customers forfeited and shown as income and
interest on delayed 348 (Delhi) transferred directly to the capital reserve account would be a trading receipt in the assessee's
payment hands but since the same is not derived from any goods or services produced by the
assessee's unit deduction under section 80-IA could not be allowed in respect of it. The interest
on delayed payment from customers against sales would partake the character of price itself
and would be included in the sale consideration, and thus, that income would be treated as
income derived from business
418 80IA depreciation on R.R.B. Consultants & Engineers Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1127-10 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi) High Court held that depreciation on windmill has to be deducted from receipts generated from
windmill (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT business of generation of power before computing deduction under section 80-IA
 30

419 80IA depreciation Plastiblends India Ltd. Vs Addl Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1009 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 137 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that depreciation deduction to be considered while computing incentive
CIT 251 Taxman 188 (SC)/[2017] 398 ITR 568 deduction under section 80-IA as it is a complete code in itself
(SC)/[2017] 298 CTR 281 (SC)
420 80IA power generating Covanta Samalpatti Operating Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0404-129 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 38 (Madras) In this case assessee-company was not an owner of power generation plant but it did only
company (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT maintenance work of power plant for which it was given a fee. High Court held that assessee
could not be considered as power generating company and could not be allowed deduction
under section 80-IA
421 80IAB interest on fixed Cyber Pearl Information Madras High Court 2017 2017-LL-0227-82 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 66 (Madras)/[2017] The assessee received interest free security deposit from persons who had taken on lease
deposits Technology Park (P.) Ltd. Vs 248 Taxman 415 (Madras)/[2017] 399 ITR infrastructure set up in IT parks of assessee and invested such amount in fixed deposits with
ITO 310 (Madras) banks. High Court held that interest income derived from fixed deposits would not amount to an
income derived from business of developing SEZ
422 80IAB profit on sale of CIT Vs DLF Commercial Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0222-56 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi) High Court held that profit on sale of building in SEZ to co-developer wasn't entitled to sec. 80-
building in SEZ Developers Ltd. IAB relief
423 80IB duty drawback/DEPB Liberty India vs. CIT Supreme Court 2009 2009-LL-0831-3 [2009] 183 Taxman 349 (SC)/[2009] 317 Supreme Court held that duty drawback receipts/Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) benefits
not part of net profits ITR 218 (SC)/[2009] 225 CTR 233 (SC) are on account of statutory provisions in Customs Act/Scheme(s) framed by Government;
therefore, profits so derived do not form part of net profits of eligible industrial undertaking for
purposes of sections 80-IB, 80-I and 80-IA
424 80IB duty drawback/DEPB M/s Opera Clothings Vs ITO Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0123 2017-TIOL-38-SC-IT Supreme Court held that duty drawback receipt/DEPB benefits cannot be considered as
not allowable deduction in respect of profit and gains from industrial undertakings for the purposes of section
deduction 80-IB of the Income Tax Act

425 80IB interest on deposits CIT vs. Dresser Rand India P. Bombay High 2011 2010-LL-0408-29 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 281 Interest on deposits would not be allowable towards the deduction under section 80-IB as the
Ltd Court (Bombay)/[2011] 200 Taxman 84 same is treated as miscellaneous income. (reversal of LD charges). The matter was remanded
(Bombay)(MAG.)/[2011] 330 ITR 453 to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. (A. Y. 2003-04)
(Bombay)
426 80IB manufacture of CIT Vs Babcock & Wilcox of Calcua High Court 1999 1999-LL-0820-2 [2003] 131 Taxman 48 (Calcutta)/[2000] The assessee company was engaged in business of erection and commissioning of power and
boilers India Ltd. 241 ITR 583 (Calcutta)/[2000] 158 CTR 352industrial boilers manufactured by its holding company. It claimed investment allowance on
(Calcutta) plant and machinery used by it on basis that said erection of boilers amounted to manufacture
of boilers. High Court held that assessee-company was not right in contending that erection of
boilers amounted to manufacture of boilers
427 80IB ceased to be a small DCIT Vs Ace Multi Axes Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1205 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 69 (SC)/[2018] 252 Supreme Court held that even though eligible business is given benefit of deduction under
scale industry Systems Ltd Taxman 274 (SC)/[2018] 400 ITR 141 section 80-IB on account of assessee satisfying conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of
(SC)/[2017] 299 CTR 441 (SC), 2017-TIOL- section 80-IB, yet benefit of said deduction can be denied subsequently having regard to fact
452-SC-IT-LB, that assessee ceased to be a small scale industry during ten consecutive years

428 80IB Recipts from contract Daman Computers Pvt. Ltd Bombay 2018 2018-LL-0810-16 2018-TIOL-1611-HC-MUM-IT, TS-457-HC- High Court denied Sec. 80-IB deduction to assessee-company outsourcing manufacturing
manufacturer without 2018(BOM) activity to contract manufacturer. It observed that the assessee did not retain control over the
without retaining manufacturing of computers carried out at the factory premises of contract manufacturer. There
control of process or was no evidence on record to show that director or any of the assessee’s employees were
employees regularly visiting contractor’s premises for supervision of manufacturing process. Further
assessee could not produce attendance register, qualification of employees despite being
asked for by the AO. Also assessee could not produce the primary evidence in the shape of
books of accounts, resolutions, even to suggest that it had deployed its manpower at the
factory premises of the contractor. Moreover, even the packaging material was supplied by
assessee to contract manufacturer for finished products

429 80IB return not filed within Suolificio Linea Italia (India) (P.) Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0504-104 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 462 High Court held that where assessee failed to file return within period prescribed under section
period prescribed u/s Ltd. Vs JCIT Court (Calcutta)/[2018] 255 Taxman 477 139(1), its claim for deduction under section 80-IB could not be allowed even though return had
139(1) (Calcutta)/[2018] 407 ITR 16 (Calcutta) been filed at a belated stage in term of section 139(4)

430 80IB additional Vedanta Ltd. Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0319-57 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 392 (Delhi) High Court held that additional depreciation is to be deducted irrespective of fact that
depreciation assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-IB would be increased by same amount

431 80IC Head office expenses Controla & Switchgear Co Ltd. Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-1114 2011-TIOL-825-HC-DEL-IT Head office expenses are to be allocated to export oriented unit where no proper bifurcation
allocation Vs DCIT has been submitted
432 80IC interest on fixed Conventional Fastners Vs CIT Uttarakhand High 2017 2017-LL-1115-6 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 163 High Court held that since interest income earned from fixed deposits reserves kept as security
deposits Court (Uttarakhand)/[2018] 403 ITR 115 and as a business pre-requisite had nothing to do with carrying on assessee's business of
(Uttarakhand)/[2018] 301 CTR 625 manufacture and sale of electric meters, same would not be entitled to benefit of deduction
(Uttarakhand) under section 80-IC
433 80IC interest on fixed Conventional Fastners Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0516-14 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 80 (SC)/[2018] 256 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that since interest income
deposits Taxman 61 (SC) earned from FD kept as security and as a business perquisite had nothing to do with carrying
on business of manufacture and sale of electric meter by assessee, income was not entitled to
section 80-IC deduction
 31

434 80IC deduction on CIT Vs Classic Binding Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0820-4 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 405 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court held that where assessee had availed deduction under section 80-IC for a
substantial expansion Industries 257 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2018] 407 ITR 429 period of 5 years at rate of 100 per cent, it would be entitled to deduction on substantial
(SC) expansion for remaining 5 assessment years at rate of 25 per cent (or 30 per cent where
assessee is a company), as the case may be, and not at rate of 100 per cent

435 80O rendering technical B.L. Passi Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0424-24 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 341 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court held that where assessee failed to prove that he rendered technical services to
services evidence 255 Taxman 143 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 81 foreign company and also failed to bring on record relevant documents to prove basis for
(SC) alleged payment by foreign company to him, assessee would not be entitled to deduction under
section 80-O
436 80P 4 Mutuality Alankar Sahkari Griha Rachana Bombay Other Acts W.P No 4457 of 2014 A co-operative housing Society is not expected to indulge into profiteering business from its
Sanstha Maryadit vs. Atul members. Transfer fees cannot be charged under the pretext of "voluntary donation". Amount
Mahadev Bhagat which is accepted above permissible limits towards transfer fee is illegal and taxable as income
in the hands of the society
437 80P(4) activities of the The Mavilayi Service Co- Kerala Not Available ITA No.97 of 2016 The AO is not obliged to grant deduction by merely looking at the certificate of registration
assessee operative Bank Ltd vs. CIT issued by the competent authority under the Co-op Societies Act. Instead, he has to conduct an
(Kerala High Court) (Full Bench) enquiry into the factual situation as to the activities of the assessee and arrive at a conclusion
whether benefits can be extended or not. Chirakkal 384 ITR 490 (Ker) overruled. Antony
Pattukulangara 2012 (3) KHC 726 & Perinthalmanna 363 ITR 268 (Ker) approved. Citizen Co-
operative Society 397 ITR 1 (SC) followed)
438 80P co-operative society The Citizen Co-operative Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0808-4 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 114 (SC)/[2017] The assessee society was engaged in activity of finance business and was also engaged in
providing credit Society Ltd Vs ACIT 250 Taxman 78 (SC)/[2017] 397 ITR 1 activity of granting loans to general public as well. Supreme Court held that it could not be
facilities to non (SC)/[2017] 297 CTR 225 (SC) termed as co-operative society meant only for its members and providing credit facilities to its
members members, hence not entitled to deduction under section 80P
439 92B referrence to TPO First American Securities (P.) Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0522-31 [2014] 52 taxmann.com 520 (Delhi)/[2015] The assessee, a non-resident company, made investment in shares of an Indian Company.
Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT 228 Taxman 187 (Delhi)(Mag.) High Court held that since it was a case where not only extent of shareholding was involved but
also control exercisable in terms of material on record, matter was rightly referred to TPO under
section 92CA
440 92B international Dabur India Ltd. Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2017-LL-1213-8 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 78 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee charged royalty from foreign entity by allowing it to use its brand name. High
transaction 253 Taxman 129 (Delhi)/[2018] 301 CTR Court held that in such a case, even though assessee acquired entire shareholding of said
367 (Delhi) company subsequently, yet unless at entity level there was a complete re-organization so as to
result in a complete identity of two concerns, royalty arising out of use of brand name had to be
treated as an international transaction
441 92B international Tooltech Global Engineering Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0305-46 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 357 High Court held that where loans and advances were given by assessee to its AE, it would be
transaction (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 254 Taxman 241 an international transaction hit by provisions of Chapter X of Act as in terms of Explanation to
(Bombay) section 92B, loans/advances to AE is an international transaction and, thus, interest on such
loan/advance has to be reworked to determine ALP
442 92BA specified domestic D.B. Corp Ltd. Vs DCIT Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0810-239 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 115 High Court held that where directors of assessee-company, in aggregate, held more than 20
transaction (Gujarat)/[2017] 389 ITR 162 (Gujarat) per cent of shares in voting power in W Ltd. and expenditure incurred by assessee in respect of
such company exceeded Rs. 5 crores, there was a specified domestic transaction covered by
section 92BA
443 92C 147 92CA(3) order can be Coca Cola India Inc. Vs ACIT P&H High Court 2008 2008-LL-1217-1 [2009] 177 Taxman 103 (Punjab & Provisions of section 147 are not in any manner controlled by provisions of section 92. There is
considered for Haryana)/[2009] 309 ITR 194 (Punjab & no limit provided in section 147 for consideration of any material having nexus with opinion on
reopening Haryana)/[2009] 221 CTR 225 (Punjab & issue of escapement of assessment of income. Requirement of section 147 is fulfilled if
Haryana) Assessing Officer can legitimately form an opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped
assessment and for forming such an opinion, any relevant material including an order of
Transfer Pricing Officer passed under section 92CA(3) can be considered

444 92C 147 pricing of Sysarris Software (P.) Ltd. Vs Karnataka High 2013 2013-LL-0107-24 [2013] 30 taxmann.com 319 High Court held that reopening of assessment on ground that pricing of international transaction
international DCIT Court (Karnataka)/[2013] 213 Taxman 352 entered into by assessee was not transparent and some adjustment was required in arm's
transaction not (Karnataka)/[2013] 352 ITR 448 length price was valid
transparent (Karnataka)/[2013] 257 CTR 201
(Karnataka)
445 92C PLI of only one CIT Vs Mentor Graphics (Noida) Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-0404-54 [2013] 32 taxmann.com 300 (Delhi)/[2013] High Court held that where PLI of only one comparable out of set of comparables was less than
comparable (P.) Ltd 215 Taxman 539 (Delhi)/[2013] 354 ITR that of assessee, that comparable alone could not be taken for computing ALP
586 (Delhi)/[2013] 259 CTR 1 (Delhi)

446 92C principal to principal Mitsubishi Corporation India (P.) Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0704-139 [2014] 48 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi)/[2014] High Court held that where assessee entered into transactions of sales and purchases of
basis Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT 225 Taxman 38 (Delhi)(Mag.)/[2014] 366 goods with its AE located abroad on principal to principal basis which were akin to trading
ITR 495 (Delhi)/[2014] 269 CTR 329 (Delhi) transactions, authorities below were justified in rejecting assessee's contention that while
determining ALP appropriate ratio to be considered for comparing with other entities would be
ratio of net revenue to operating costs
 32

447 92C comparables Polaris Consulting Services Ltd. Madras High Court 2015 2015-LL-0715-9 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 117 High Court held that where earlier draft assessment order was not dealt on merits, but set aside
selected by TPO Vs JCIT (Madras)/[2015] 235 Taxman 229 only on ground of violation of principles of natural justice, there was nothing wrong in adopting
(Madras)/[2016] 285 CTR 81 (Madras) comparables selected by TPO in earlier order by revenue in determining arm's length price in
international transaction of assessee
448 92C CUP method Denso India (P.) Ltd. Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0302-42 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 15 (SC)/[2017] 246 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where both D and S
Taxman 375 (SC) were promoters with controlling shareholding over assessee-company and assessee chose to
import components not from manufacturer D but from intermediary S and this unusual feature
remained unexplained by assessee, TPO was justified in applying CUP method for same while
accepting value of all other international transactions on basis of TNMM

449 92C company incurring Steria India Ltd. Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0409-52 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 120 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee-company was rendering software development services to AE, a company which
persistent losses not 255 Taxman 110 (Delhi)/[2018] 302 CTR apart from earning income form software services, also earned income from 'Business process
comparable 153 (Delhi) outsourcing services', which fell in realm of IT enabled services and there was no segmental
information qua software services alone, High Court held that said company could not be
accepted as comparable. In case of assessee rendering software development services to AE,
a company incurring persistent losses coupled with declining turnover indicated its abnormal
functional circumstances, could not be accepted as comparable

450 92C exhaust remedies Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Vs Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0716-61 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 497 High Court held that whenever there is a provision for an appeal under statute of approaching
before writ DCIT (Madras)/[2018] 406 ITR 25 (Madras) DRP against order of T.P.Q., without exhausting remedies available under statute, no writ
petition can be entertained in a routine manner
451 92C DRP cannot condone Inno Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs DRP Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0726-95 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 646 High Court held that DRP has no power and authority and jurisdiction to condone delay in filing
delay in filing (Madras)/[2018] 258 Taxman 21 objection beyond stipulated period of thirty days from date of receipt of draft assessment order
objection (Madras)/[2018] 406 ITR 553 (Madras)
452 92CA opportunity of Intimate Fashions (India) (P.) Madras High Court 2009 2009-LL-1223-3 [2010] 190 Taxman 78 (Madras)/[2010] 321 The assessee filed written statement it did not avail of opportunity of personal hearing.
personal hearing Ltd. Vs JCIT ITR 265 (Madras)/[2010] 232 CTR 36 Thereafter, TPO passed impugned order. High Court held that it could not be said that
(Madras) impugned order was passed without affording personal hearing. Moreover, alternative remedy
under section 144C with Dispute Resolution Panel being available to assessee, writ petition
against impugned order would not be maintainable.
453 92CA principles of natural Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2011 2011-LL-1223-138 [2012] 17 taxmann.com 187 High Court held that assessee having participated in transfer pricing proceedings, could not
justice Addl.CIT Court (Bombay)/[2012] 211 Taxman 315 subsequently challenge determination of ALP on ground that reference was made to TPO in
(Bombay)/[2013] 359 ITR 46 violation of principles of natural justice
(Bombay)/[2012] 252 CTR 167 (Bombay)

454 92CA Additional Bhatia International Ltd. Vs MP High Court 2012 2012-LL-0514-2 [2012] 26 taxmann.com 171 (Madhya High Court held that Additional Commissioner is competent to make reference to TPO under
Commissioner Addl.CIT Pradesh)/[2012] 210 Taxman 327 (Madhya section 92CA
competent Pradesh)/[2012] 252 CTR 176 (Madhya
Pradesh)
455 92CA failure to supply Shri Vishnu Eatables (India) Ltd. P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-1003-37 [2016] 74 taxmann.com 89 (Punjab & High Court held that in terms of section 92CA, failure to supply satisfaction note to assessee
satisfaction note Vs DCIT Haryana)/[2016] 243 Taxman 446 (Punjab before making reference to TPO is at highest a mere irregularity and, it cannot turn reference
& Haryana)/[2016] 389 ITR 385 (Punjab & itself as void ab initio
Haryana)/[2016] 289 CTR 337 (Punjab &
Haryana)
456 92CA transactions with AEs Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Vs ADIT Uttarakhand High 2017 2017-LL-1103-8 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 91 AO on basis of material on record, noticed that assessee had transactions with AEs which were
not referred to TPO Court (Uttarakhand)/[2018] 252 Taxman 181 never referred to TPO for computation of income at arm's length. High Court held that he was
(Uttarakhand)/[2018] 401 ITR 209 justified in initiating reassessment proceedings
(Uttarakhand)
457 115JB no adjustment except Malyalam Manorma Vs CIT Supreme Court 2008 2008-LL-0410-4 [2008] 169 Taxman 471 (SC)/[2008] 300 Supreme Court held that once accounts have been prepared as per Companies Act 1956 &
those enumerated in ITR 251 (SC)/[2008] 216 CTR 102 (SC) certified by the statutory auditors, then there is no adjustment that can be made for the purpose
115JB of Income Tax Act u/s 115JB, except save the changes enumerated therein.

458 115JB no adjustment except Appollo Tyres Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2002 2002-LL-0502-1 [2002] 122 Taxman 562 (SC)/[2002] 255 Supreme Court held that once accounts have been prepared as per Companies Act 1956 &
those enumerated in ITR 273 (SC)/[2002] 174 CTR 521 (SC) certified by the statutory auditors, then there is no adjustment that can be made for the purpose
115JB of Income Tax Act u/s 115JB, except save the changes enumerated therein.

459 115JB provision for doubtful Whirlpool of India Ltd. and Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-0228-181 [2013] 31 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi)/[2013] High Court held that provision for doubtful Debt is to be added u/s 115JB.
Debt another Vs. Union of India 214 Taxman 567 (Delhi)/[2013] 355 ITR 51
(Delhi)/[2013] 258 CTR 378 (Delhi)

460 120 objection to PCIT Vs Mega Corporation Ltd Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0223-97 ITA No.128/2016, 2017-TIOL-2617-HC-DEL- The ITAT fell into error in interpretation of provisions of Section 124(3)(a) and holding that the
jurisdiction only within IT ACIT could not have completed the assessment by virtue of Section 120(4)(b). The assessee
a month could have raised objection to jurisdiction only within a month having regard to the notification
which was issued on 01.08.2007
 33

461 124 objection to Abhishek Jain Vs ITO Delhi High Court 01.06.18 2018-LL-0601-125 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi)/[2018] In terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by
jurisdiction only within 405 ITR 1 (Delhi), 2018-TIOL-1059-HC- an assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for
a month DEL-IT reopening assessment under section 148
462 127 Coordinated J.R. Tantia Charitable Rajasthan, Gujarat 2011 2011-LL-1014 [2011] 15 taxmann.com 311 The reason “for effective and coordinated investigation” cannot be stated to be insufficient or
investigation is Trust v. Dy. CIT (Rajasthan)/[2011] 203 Taxman 348 vague or general
sufficient reason for (Rajasthan)/[2013] 355 ITR 226
trasnfer (Rajasthan)/[2011] 245 CTR 162
(Rajasthan)
463 127 irregularity which can CIT Vs. S.S. Ahluwalia Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0314-191 [2014] 46 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi)/[2014] High Court held that an assessment order passed without making reference to Commissioner
be rectified by order 225 Taxman 131 (Delhi)(MAG.) under section 124 is not a nullity for want of jurisdiction but it results in an irregularity which can
of remit be rectified by order of remit. In case assessee shifts his residence or place of business or work
etc., Assessing Officer of place where assessee has shifted or otherwise, will have jurisdiction
and it is not necessary that in such a case, an order under section 127 is required to be passed

464 127 reasoning and public Chaudhary Skin Trading Co. Vs Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-1102-8 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 169 (Delhi)/[2016] Pursuant to search proceedings in assessee's group companies, Commissioner passed an
interest was PCIT 290 CTR 533 (Delhi) order under section 127 proposing to centralise all cases. High Court held that since there was
discernable reasoning and public interest was discernable, order so passed did not require any interference

465 127 search cases United Associates Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-1121-76 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi) Where cases of searched assessee and group concerns were scattered across different cities
and states, all cases were to be centralised for taking a common view by one Assessing Officer

466 127 same city Advantage Strategic Consulting Madras High Court 2017 2017-LL-1205-22 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 104 High Court held that where assessee's case was transferred from one place to another in same
Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (Madras)/[2018] 253 Taxman 11 city, in view of provisions of sub-section (3) of section 127, assessee could not plead for an
(Madras)/[2018] 400 ITR 405 opportunity of hearing before order of transfer
(Madras)/[2018] 300 CTR 151 (Madras),
2017-TIOL-2542-HC-MAD-IT
467 127 administrative Ravneet Takhar Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0713-2 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 299 (SC)/[2017] SLP dismissed as withdrawn against High Court's ruling that transfer of assessee's case for
convenience 250 Taxman 92 (SC) administrative convenience is valid
468 127 money seized from Preeti Elhence Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0501-22 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 426 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that case was aptly transferred to Meerut city as money of assessee was
that city 248 Taxman 82 (SC) seized from property of her in-laws located in Meerut city
469 132 challenge validity on Anuj Chawla Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0411-40 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 257 (Delhi) Even though an assessee can challenge validity of search on ground that a particular officer of
credible evidence department brought pressure and used his official position in an unfair manner, yet same has to
be established by credible evidence. Whether where assessee challenged search proceedings
on ground that Assessing Officer who passed block assessment order, was a participant in
raiding party, since no personal bias, or malice or past history with said official was proved,
argument that assessment was void on account of bias, deserved to be rejected

470 132 Delayed challenge Alay Rakesh Shah Vs DIT Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0924-79 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 448 Supreme Court held that where karta of HUF had initiated litigation against alleged illegal
(Gujarat)/[2018] 259 Taxman 189 (Gujarat) search action of department on HUF at relevant time, a member of HUF individually could not
restart same litigation long many years after cause of action had arisen

471 132 search and seize Strategic Credit Capital (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0529-61 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi)/[2017] A person can be in possession of undisclosed income not only in his or her own account but
accounts Vs Ratnakar Bank Ltd. 395 ITR 391 (Delhi) also in someone else's account. High Court held that pursuant to search warrant in name of
him/her, department could proceed to search and seize in accounts of such other person and
require bank to freeze such account
472 132 warrant in joint CIT Vs Devesh Singh Allahabad High 2012 2012-LL-0723-79 [2012] 24 taxmann.com 26 High Court held that assessment can be made in individual capacity of each person though
names Court (Allahabad)/[2012] 209 Taxman 267 warrant of authorisation has been issued in joint names
(Allahabad)/[2012] 252 CTR 356
(Allahabad)
473 132 notice is not required Liberty Marine Syndicate (P.) Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-1230-2 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 150 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that provisions of section
to be given Ltd. Vs PCIT 245 Taxman 269 (SC) 131(1A) do not require that a notice is required to be given to assessee before carrying out
search proceedings under section 132
474 132(1) Expl. capital expenditure Mother Hospital (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0308-62 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 375 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that in terms of Explanation 1 to section 32(1), it is only when assessee
on building with lease 392 ITR 628 (SC) holds a lease right or other right of occupancy and any capital expenditure is incurred by it on
right construction or renovation or improvement of building, assessee would be entitled to
depreciation to extent of such expenditure incurred
475 132A 'reason to suspect' N.K. Jewellers Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0913-3 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that in view of amendment made in section 132A by Finance Act of 2017,
not to be disclosed 251 Taxman 7 (SC)/[2017] 398 ITR 116 'reason to believe' or 'reason to suspect', as the case may be, is not required to be disclosed to
(SC)/[2017] 298 CTR 113 (SC) any person or any authority or Appellate Tribunal as recorded by revenue authority under
section 132 or section 132A
476 132B delay and laches Kishore Jagjivandas Tanna Vs Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0917-81 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 235 Where as per assessment order dated 12-2-2009 passed after search, seized cash was to be
JDIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 259 Taxman 25 (Bombay) refunded to assessee but despite such order cash was not refunded, writ petition filed by
assessee on 4-7-2018 for refund of cash seized was liable to be dismissed on ground of delay
and laches
 34

477 132(4) Admission Sterling Machine Tools V. CIT Allahabad 1980 1979-LL-1115-3 [1980] 3 Taxman 489 (Allahabad)/[1980] The court held that the legal value of an admission is that it is the best evidence that an
Statements as 122 ITR 926 (Allahabad) opposite party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the mater unless
Incriminating unsuccessfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.
evidence
478 132(4) 153A Admission Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs. UOI SC Other Acts SLP(C) No.14028/96 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that revenue officers are not police officers and confession,
Statements as though retracted, is an admission and binding on petitioner.
Incriminating
evidence
479 132(4) Statement on oath Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT Guwahati High 2003 2003-LL-0730-3 [2003] 133 Taxman 432 (Gauhati)/[2003] From facts, it was clear that there was a delay on the part of the appellant and its partner in
during search Court 263 ITR 169 (Gauhati)/[2003] 185 CTR 651 retracting the statements recorded. The attention of the Court had also not been drawn to any
(Gauhati) material on record to establish that any attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to prove
the allegation of inducement, threat or coercion through the witnesses. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, having regard to the materials on record, the appellant had failed to
establish that the statements of its partner had been recorded in the course of the search by
using coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that
regard were dismissed.
480 132(4) Statement on oath Bhagirath Aggarwal Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2013 2013-LL-0122-3 [2013] 31 taxmann.com 274 (Delhi)/[2013] High Court held that an addition in assessee's income relying on statements recorded during
during search 215 Taxman 229 (Delhi)/[2013] 351 ITR search operations cannot be deleted without proving statements to be incorrect
143 (Delhi)
481 132(4) Statement on oath Vinod Kumar Khatri Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-1123 2015-TIOL-2669-HC-DEL-IT Hon’ble ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal after holding that the revised return was filed
during search voluntarily by the Assessee on 30th March 1994 on the basis of the surrender of the amount
declared by him in the statement recorded under Section 132 (4) of the act during the course of
search. Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of ITAT stating that ITAT did not commit any
error in relying on the statement made by the Assessee under Section 132 (4) of the Act

482 132(4) 153A Statement on oath B. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT Supreme Court 2015 2015-LL-0702-9 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 215 (SC)/[2015] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that since assessee
during search 234 Taxman 771 (SC) himself had stated in sworn statement during search and seizure about his undisclosed income,
tax was to be levied on basis of admission without scrutinizing documents

483 132(4) Statement on oath CIT Vs T.Rangroopchand Madras High Court 2016 2016-LL-0217-155 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 202 High Court held that loose sheets seized constitutes 'documents' under section 132(4)
during search Chordia (Madras)/[2016] 241 Taxman 221 (Madras)

484 132(4) Statement on oath Pr.CIT Vs Roashan Lal Rajasthan 2018-LL-1030-29 306 CTR 140(Raj) The court after analysis of all the decisions on the issue once again upheld that the admission
during search Sancheti u/s 132(4) is of great evidentiary value and such statement cannot be discarded just because
assessee has belatedly retracted by an affidavit and the duration of time when such retraction
is made assumes significance. In this case retraction was made after 8 months

485 132(4) 153A Admission CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal Delhi 2016 2016-LL-0310-1 [2016] 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi)/[2016] High Court held that a statement recorded under section 132(4) can form basis for a block
Statements as 241 Taxman 199 (Delhi)/[2016] 290 CTR assessment only if such statement relates to any incriminating evidence of undisclosed income
Incriminating 263 (Delhi) unearthed during search
evidence
486 132(4) Statement on oath CIT Vs Kuwer Fibres Pvt Ltd Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-1020-88 2017-TIOL-30-HC-DEL-IT 1. Addition made on basis of director's statement recorded during the course of search
during search proceedings is sustainable, where the statements recorded are duly corroborated by evidences
on record 2.adoption of estimated valuation is justified, when the purchases were made
outside the books of account and proper accounting or reconciliation was not made by the
assessee 3.rejection of valuer's report is sustainable, where neither the valuer's report was
produced within the stipulated time nor was it unverified
487 132(4) Statement on oath CIT Vs M. S. Aggarwal Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0423-64 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 247 (Delhi)/[2018] In course of block assessment proceedings, AO made addition to assessee's undisclosed
during search 406 ITR 609 (Delhi) income in respect of gift. High Court held that in view of fact that assessee did not even know
donor personally and, moreover, he himself in presence of his Chartered Accountant had made
a statement under sec. 132(4) admitting that said gift was bogus, impugned addition was to be
confirmed
488 132(4A) presumption of Daya Chand Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2001 2001-LL-0206-4 [2001] 117 Taxman 438 (Delhi)/[2001] 250 High Court held that presumption under clause (ii) of section 132(4A), which provides that
seized documents ITR 327 (Delhi)/[2001] 167 CTR 446 (Delhi) contents of seized books of account and other documents are true, is linked with search and
seizure and is applicable only in relation to provisional adjudication contemplated under sub-
section (5) of section 132 and operation of section 68 remains unaffected by it

489 132(4A) presumption of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0207-1 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 249 (Delhi)/[2011] High Court held that there was a presumption raised under section 132(4A) on seizure of fax
seized documents Aggarwala 198 Taxman 194 (Delhi)/[2011] 331 ITR message and it was upon assessee to rebut that presumption by offering a plausible
510 (Delhi) explanation
490 132(4A) presumption of CIT Vs Sonal Constructions Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-1004-30 [2012] 28 taxmann.com 127 (Delhi)/[2012] During search certain documents were seized from possession of a partner of assessee-firm.
seized documents 211 Taxman 167 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2013] 359 High Court held that merely because partners were not examined by Assessing Officer at time
ITR 532 (Delhi)/[2013] 260 CTR 377 (Delhi) of assessment, it could not be stated that no reliance could be placed on seized materials for
purposes of making additions
 35

491 132(4A) presumption of Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT Jharkhand High 2014 2014-LL-0109-74 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 328 High Court held that loose sheets seized during search sometimes contain valuable information
seized documents Court (Jharkhand)/[2014] 266 CTR 175 and thus those are to be regarded as ' documents' within meaning of section 158B(b). There is
(Jharkhand) presumption raised under section 132(4A) regarding documents seized and in light of such
presumption, assessee ought to have produced other documents to disprove entries made in
loose sheets
492 132(4A) presumption of Bhagheeratha Engineering Ltd Kerala High Court 2015 2015-LL-0908-114 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 325 (Kerala)/[2015] High Court held that in view of introduction of section 158BH presumption under section
seized documents Vs ACIT 379 ITR 244 (Kerala)/[2016] 282 CTR 209 132(4A) regarding ownership of seized assets was not limited to proceedings for search and
(Kerala) seizure under section 132, and was also available for framing regular assessment

493 132(4A) presumption of Ashok Kumar Vs CIT Patna High Court 2016 2016-LL-0420-15 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 129 (Patna)/[2016] AO passed income escaping assessment on basis of a loose sheet found in premises of father
seized documents 239 Taxman 436 (Patna)/[2016] 386 ITR of assessee. High Court held that action of Assessing Officer was justified being based on
342 (Patna)/[2016] 290 CTR 450 (Patna) relevant material and, merely, because he used wrong presumption in assessment order it
would not change nature of order
494 132(4A) presumption of Baldev Raj Vs CIT P & H High Court 2008 2008-LL-0826-8 [2010] 2 taxmann.com 335 (Punjab & The assessee submitted that presumption under section 132(4A) of the Act was rebuttable and
seized documents Haryana) the assesee led evidence to rebut the said presumption. High Court held that there is no
dispute about the proposition that presumption can be rebutted nor the Tribunal has held to the
contrary. The Tribunal has held that the assessee failed to rebut the presumption, which is
purely a finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order

495 132(4A) presumption of P R Metrani Vs CIT Supreme Court 2006 2006-LL-1115-6 [2006] 157 Taxman 325 (SC)/[2006] 287 Supreme Court held that presumption under section 132(4A) is available only in regard to
seized documents ITR 209 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 290 (SC) proceedings for search and seizure and for purpose of retaining assets under section 132(5)
and their application under section 132B, and it is not available for any other proceeding except
where it is provided that presumption under section 132(4A) would be available

496 133(6) deceased person Mrs. S. Savithri Vs ITO Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0102-6 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 341 High Court held that where notice under section 133(6) was issued against a deceased person,
Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 253 Taxman 186 wife of said deceased person would have to comply with said notice for furnishing requisite
(Karnataka)/[2018] 400 ITR 513 information under said section
(Karnataka)/[2018] 301 CTR 734
(Karnataka)
497 133A Statement on oath Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0127 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi)/[2015] High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding
during survey CIT 230 Taxman 567 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR 9 surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised
(Delhi) before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified

498 133A Statement on oath PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0501-43 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that where assessee surrendered certain income by way of declaration and
during survey 248 Taxman 106 (Delhi)/[2017] 395 ITR withdraw same after two years without any satisfactory explanation, it could not be treated as
235 (Delhi) bona fide and, hence, addition would sustain (SURVEY CASE)
499 133A Statement on oath M/s Pebble Investment And Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0705 2017-TIOL-238-SC-IT Dismissed SLP challenging the judgment, whereby the High Court had held that statement
during survey Finance Ltd Vs ITO made u/s 133A could be relied upon for purposes of assessment, in absence of any contrary
evidence or explanation as to why such statement made was not credible.

500 133A Statement on oath M/s Pebble Investment And Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0117-21 2017-TIOL-188-HC-MUM-IT Statement made u/s 133A can be relied upon for purposes of assessment, in absence of any
during survey Finance Ltd Vs ITO Court contrary evidence or explanation as to why such statement made is not credible
501 139 revised return for Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT Supreme Court 2006 2006-LL-0324-7 [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC)/[2006] 284 ITR Assessee cannot claim deduction without filing the revised return of income
deduction 323 (SC)/[2006] 204 CTR 182 (SC)
502 139 condonation of delay B.U. Bhandari Nandgude Patil Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0312-63 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 241 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee filed its return after five months and nearly after a period of four years appealed
Associates Vs CBDT 255 Taxman 60 (Delhi)/[2018] 302 CTR 472 before CBDT to condone delay in filing return, for sole reason of illness of auditor. High Court
(Delhi) held that since details of illness and any respective proof, namely, doctor's prescription, was not
given, delay could not be condoned
503 142(2A) complexity of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. Delhi High Court 1999 1998-LL-0428-11 [1999] 102 Taxman 202 (Delhi) High Court held that no fault could be found with the Assessing Officer having taken a decision
accounts Vs. ACIT to initiate special audit under section 142(2A). The specific object behind enacting section
142(2A) is to assist the Assessing Officer in framing an assessment when he finds the
accounts of the assessee to be complex, by having the services of a special auditor at hand.

504 142(2A) complexity of Living Media Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2002 2001-LL-0808-4 [2002] 123 Taxman 75 (SC)/[2002] 255 ITR The assessee had filed voluminous details running into more than thousand pages to explain
accounts 268 (SC)/[2002] 175 CTR 299 (SC) queries raised by assessing authority and assessing authority directed special audit of
assessee's accounts on basis of its nature and complexity. High Court held that there was no
reason to conclude that order was for any reason other than complexity of assessee's accounts
and, therefore, no interference was called for
505 142(2A) not subject-matter of Rajesh Kumar Vs DCIT Supreme Court 2006 2006-LL-1101-5 [2006] 157 Taxman 168 (SC)/[2006] 287 Supreme Court held that direction issued under section 142(2A) cannot be subject-matter of
appeal ITR 91 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 175 (SC) appeal
 36

506 142(2A) invalid order u/s Sahara India (Firm) Vs CIT Supreme Court 2008 2008-LL-0411-5 [2008] 169 Taxman 328 (SC)/[2008] 300 Supreme Court held that it will not be open to the appellants to urge before the appellate
142(2A) ITR 403 (SC)/[2008] 216 CTR 303 (SC) authority that the extended period of limitation under Explanation 1(iii) to section 153(3) of the
Act was not available to the AO because of an invalid order u/s 142(2A) of the Act.

507 142(2A) appeal pending CIT Vs Sunita Mansingha Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0329-7 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 258 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that where assessment had not become final and conclusive because
before High Court 393 ITR 121 (SC) appeal preferred by revenue was pending before High Court, in view of proviso to sub-section
(3) of section 142A, a valid reference to DVO could be made
508 142(2A) objection not raised Elite Pharmaceuticals Vs. ITO Calcutta High 2016 2016-LL-0803-169 [2016] 73 taxmann.com 69 (Calcutta)/[2016] The Assessing Officer conducted survey upon assessee and thereafter issued on it a notice
within 30 days Court 242 Taxman 345 (Calcutta)/[2017] 297 CTR under section 148 dated 27-3-2015 and assessee by letter dated 29-4-2015 raised objection to
428 (Calcutta) territorial jurisdiction of Assessing Officer. High Court held that since objection was not raised
within 30 days even from date of issuance of notice under section 148, assessee had lost right
to raise objection by efflux of time
509 142(2A) complexity of Sant Asharamji Ashram Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0426-231 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 207 During search of Asharam Bapu's ashram across country, large scale money laundering was
accounts DCIT (Gujarat)/[2017] 248 Taxman 426 revealed and looking at multiplicity and complexity of transactions found in requisitioned
(Gujarat)/[2018] 402 ITR 448 (Gujarat) documents in 45 gunny bags. Assessing Officer passed order of special audit after obtaining
proper approval of Principal Commissioner and giving opportunity of hearing. High Court held
that same could not be said to be illegal
510 142(2A) multiplicity of Takshashila Realties (P.) Ltd. Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0703-15 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 184 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that that no interference
transactions & Vs DCIT 250 Taxman 13 (SC) was called for where Assessing Officer after taking into consideration multiplicity of transactions
specialised nature of in accounts and specialised nature of business activities of assessee, passed an order for
business activities special audit

511 142(2A) irregularities in order Shyamal Sarkar Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0710-1 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 167 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where audit had
of audit would not 250 Taxman 18 (SC) taken place, period of limitation for passing assessment order would be extended by time taken
invalidate for special audit; mere irregularities in order of audit would not invalidate proceedings
proceedings
512 142(2A) opportunity of hearing Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. Vs Allahabad High 2017 2004-LL-0217 [2017] [2004] 137 Taxman 214 High Court held that sub-section (2A) of section 142 does not have civil consequences as it
or show-cause notice ACIT Court (Allahabad)/[2004] 266 ITR 657 neither affects rights of assessee nor creates any liability against him. Therefore, it is not
(Allahabad)/[2004] 188 CTR 434 necessary that an opportunity of hearing or show-cause notice has to be given to an assessee
(Allahabad) before issuing directions under section 142(2A)
513 142(2A) date of starting Nokia India (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0306-41 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 76 (Delhi)/[2018] High Court held that limitation period to complete special audit would start from date on which
Addl.CIT 255 Taxman 266 (Delhi)/[2018] 402 ITR AO issued direction for special audit
517 (Delhi)/[2018] 301 CTR 665 (Delhi)

514 142(2A) date of starting PCIT Vs AT&T Global Network Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0820-34 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 462 (Delhi) High Court held that clause (iv) to Explanation 1 of section 153 clearly states that period from
Services (India) (P.) Ltd. date when Assessing Officer directs special audit till last date of furnishing such report under
section 142 (2A) shall be excluded
515 142(2A) PCIT to apply mind Ramswaroop Shivhare Vs DCIT MP High Court 2018 2018-LL-0906-4 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 89 (Madhya Direction for special audit is subjected to approval of Principal Commissioner. Hence, it is
Pradesh) Principal Commissioner who has to apply mind before granting approval for special audit after
granting opportunity for hearing to assessee
516 142(2A) assessee not alleged Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd. Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1206-1 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi)/[2019] AO had carefully outlined salient aspects in accounts and returns of assessee that needed to
any mala fide 260 Taxman 253 (Delhi)/[2019] 410 ITR be looked into and made impugned order directing special audit and assessee had not alleged
356 (Delhi) any mala fides, High Court held that impugned order directing special audit was justified

517 142(2C) time for submission CIT Vs Ram Kishan Dass Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0326-44 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 414 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court held that section 142(2C) even prior to amendment by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f.
of audit report 413 ITR 337 (SC) 1-4-2008, did not preclude exercise of jurisdiction and authority by Assessing Officer to extend
time for submission of audit report directed under section 142(2A), without an application by
assessee
518 143 Res Judicata Lachhiram Puranmal Vs CIT MP High Court 2000 2000-LL-1020-8 [2001] 119 Taxman 1 (Madhya Pradesh) Res judicata - Assessment in earlier years does not bind assessing authority
519 143(1) settled issue DCIT Vs Raghuvir Synthetics Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0328-59 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 203 (SC)/[2017] An already settled issue regarding treatment of 'public issue expenses', cannot be declared as
Ltd 247 Taxman 393 debatable and hence non-considerable in the proceedings u/s 143(1)(a)
(SC)/[2017]394ITR1(SC)/[2017] 295 CTR
143 (SC), 2017-TIOL-180-SC-IT
520 143(1D) likelihood of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1214-5 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 310 (Delhi)/[2019] High Court held that when assessment pursuant to notice under section 143(2) was pending
substantial demand Vs ACIT 260 Taxman 417 (Delhi) and likelihood of substantial demands upon assessee after completion of scrutiny could not be
ruled out, refund claim could not be allowed
521 143(2) dispatched by speed CIT Vs Madhsy Films (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 2008 2008-LL-0325 [2008] 175 Taxman 347 (Delhi)/[2008] 301 High Court held that where notice issued to assessee under section 143(2) had been
post ITR 69 (Delhi)/[2008] 216 CTR 145 (Delhi) dispatched by speed post at its address as per its return and same had not been received
back, it could be presumed that it had reached assessee, particularly when no affidavit had
been filed by assessee to effect that notice was not received by it
522 143(2) served at official CIT Vs Vision Inc Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0525-337 [2012] 21 taxmann.com 515 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that where in absence of partners of assessee-firm, notice under section
address 208 Taxman 153 (Delhi) 143(2) was served on employee of firm at official address and, pursuant to said notice,
assessee also participated in assessment proceedings, it amounted to valid service of notice
 37

523 143(2) sent by registered CIT Vs Yamu Industries Ltd Delhi High Court 2007 2007-LL-0528-3 [2008] 167 Taxman 67 (Delhi)/[2008] 306 High Court held that where notice under section 143(2) sent by registered post at correct
post ITR 309 (Delhi)/[2008] 214 CTR 445 (Delhi) address of assessee had not been received back ‘unserved’ within period of thirty days of its
issuance, there was a presumption under law that said notice had been duly served upon
assessee within period of limitation
524 143(2) due date Sunday Gujarat State Plastic Gujarat High Court 2013 2013-LL-0625-76 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 103 High Court held that notice under section 143(2) having been served upon assessee on very
Manufacturers Association Vs (Gujarat)/[2014] 222 Taxman 182 next working day due date being Sunday, was valid
DCIT (Gujarat)(MAG)/[2013] 359 ITR 516
(Gujarat)
525 143(2) due date Sunday Gujarat State Plastic Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0102-28 [2014] 51 taxmann.com 372 (SC)/[2014] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that notice under section
Manufacturers Association Vs 227 Taxman 380 (SC) 143(2) having been served upon assessee on very next working day due date being Sunday,
DCIT was valid
526 143(2) after expiry of twelve CIT Vs Mrs. C. Malathy Madras High Court 2007 2007-LL-0226-9 [2007] 294 ITR 532 (Madras)/[2008] 214 High Court held that where a return had been filed pursuant to notice under section 148 on 16-7-
months CTR 173 (Madras) 1998 and notice under section 143(2) was issued 16-10-1999, such notice was not barred by
limitation even though it was issued after expiry of twelve months after date of filing of return,
as specified in section 143(2)
527 143(2) assessee Sumitra Menon Vs ACIT Madras High Court 2009 2009-LL-0615 [2009] 315 ITR 111 (Madras) High Court held that where though assessee alleged that there was no proper service of notice,
represented assessee was represented by an auditor who filed return, as alleged irregularity was practically
waived by assessee she could not make any grievance of it
528 143(2) 147 limitation u/s 143(2) CIT Vs OCM India Ltd P&H High Court ` 2006-LL-1012-4 [2008] 170 Taxman 150 (Punjab & High Court held that limitation prescribed under proviso to section 143(2) is not applicable to
not applicable to Haryana) reassessment under section 147
proceedings u/s147

529 143(2) not raised objection, Josh Builders & Developers (P.) P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-0909-1 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 435 (Punjab & High Court held that assessee, having not raised any objection with regard to issuance and
participated Ltd Vs PCIT Haryana)/[2016] 389 ITR 314 (Punjab & service of a valid notice during assessment proceedings and rather, without any objection,
Haryana) having voluntarily taken part in such proceedings, could not seek annulment of assessment
proceedings on ground of non-service of notice
530 143(2) objection to PCIT Vs Mega Corporation Ltd Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0223-97 ITA No.128/2016, 2017-TIOL-2617-HC-DEL- The ITAT fell into error in interpretation of provisions of Section 124(3)(a) and holding that the
jurisdiction within a IT ACIT could not have completed the assessment by virtue of Section 120(4)(b). The assessee
month could have raised objection to jurisdiction only within a month having regard to the notification
which was issued on 01.08.2007

531 143(2) omission to mention Padinjarekara Agencies Pvt Ltd Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-0711-15 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 129 (Kerala)/[2017] Mere omission to mention Section 143(2) literally in notices issued to assessee, would not
section 143(2) Vs CIT 398 ITR 381 (Kerala)/[2018] 300 CTR 554 invalidate the assessment order, if no prejudice is caused to assessee in defending cases
literally in notices (Kerala), 2017-TIOL-1650-HC-KERALA-IT against him

532 143(2) service on authorised ITO Vs Dharam Narain Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0219-55 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 325 (SC)/[2018] Deemed service of notice on the authorised representative satisfies the requirements of
representative 253 Taxman 479 (SC)/[2018] 301 CTR 41 provisions of Sec 143(2)
(SC), 2018-TIOL-68-SC-IT
533 143(3) amalgamation not CIT Vs M/S Shaw Wallace Calcutta High 2016 2016-LL-0606-86 [2016] 70 taxmann.com 381 When the assessee, an amalgamating company, itself chose not to inform the Revenue about
informed Distilleries Ltd Court (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 348 the amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court and preferred to file its return in its own
(Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 14 capacity, the assessment order passed by the AO cannot be held as nullity
(Calcutta)/[2016] 290 CTR 684 (Calcutta),
2016-TIOL-1228-HC-KOL-IT
534 145 44AB balance sheet to Binod Kumar Agarwala Vs CIT Calcutta High 2018 2018-LL-0621-1 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 422 High Court held that AO could have made additions to assessee's income on basis of window
obtain loan Court (Calcutta)/[2018] 257 Taxman 58 dressed financials, as they had been prepared to obtain bank loan and had no connection with
(Calcutta)/[2019] 411 ITR 493 actuals
(Calcutta)/[2018] 303 CTR 406 (Calcutta)

535 145 cessation of liability Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Supreme Court 1996 1996-LL-0911-2 [1996] 88 Taxman 429 (SC)/[1996] 222 ITR Supreme Court held that money received by the assessee in the ordinary course of carrying out
of principal of loan 344 (SC)/[1996] 136 CTR 444 (SC) business is taxable as income from business. Cessation of liability of principal of loan is
taxable.
536 145 true nature, not how Sutlej Cotton Mills V CIT Supreme Court 1978 1978-LL-0927 [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC) The way in which entries are made by an assessee in the books of account is not determinative
entries made of the question whether the assessee has earned any profit or loss. What is necessary to be
considered is the true nature of the transaction and whether in fact, it resulted in profit or loss to
it.
537 145 matching concept of Taparia Tools Ltd Bombay HC 2003 2003-LL-0108-2 [2003] 126 Taxman 544 (Bombay)/[2003] For arriving at correct profit of business, matching concept of income and expenditure needs to
income and 260 ITR 102 (Bombay)/[2003] 180 CTR 256 be followed i.e only the expenditure which is relevant to the earning of income only should be
expenditure (Bombay) deducted from such income so that a correct picture of real income chargeable to tax can
emerge.
538 145 mismatch between Paras Organics (P.) Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0306-62 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 405 (Bombay) AO made addition to assessee's income on ground that there was mismatch between
raw material and ACIT Court assessee's consumption of raw material and output of various drugs manufactured by
output assessee.High Court held that in view of fact that finding of AO was based on detailed
appreciation of evidence on record, impugned addition was to be confirmed
 38

539 145 GP Rate Kachwala Gems Vs JCIT Supreme Court 2006 2006-LL-1214-4 [2007] 158 Taxman 71 (SC)/[2007] 288 ITR Assessing Officer found that assessee had not maintained and kept any quantitative
10 (SC)/[2006] 206 CTR 585 (SC) details/stock register for goods traded in by it. There was no evidence on record or document to
verify basis of valuation of closing stock shown by assessee. Moreover GP rate declared by
assessee during assessment year did not match result declared by assessee itself in previous
assessment years. AO rejected assessee’s books of account and resorted to best judgment
assessment under section 144. Supreme Court held that since cogent reasons had been given
by Assessing Officer for doing so, there was no reason to take a different view

540 145 GP Rate CIT Vs Chadha Automobiles Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0124-42 [2011] 13 taxmann.com 152 (Delhi)/[2011] High Court held that Tribunal could not have made returns of last five years as sole basis for
(India) 202 Taxman 268 (Delhi) arriving at GP rate of 3.25 per cent in year in question by ignoring GP rate of 8 to 9 per cent
shown by assessee itself for post-survey period and GP rate of 4.59 per cent to 5.39 per cent
declared for subsequent two years which was duly accepted by department. On facts, keeping
in mind those GP rates, GP rate of 5 per cent would meet ends of justice

541 68 145 Addition under 68 Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. SC 1963 1963-LL-0208 50 ITR 1 (SC). Supreme Court held that both cash credit, the source and nature of which is not satisfactorily
simultaneusly with CIT explained, and the business income estimated by him after rejecting the books of account of
estimation of profit the assessee as unreliable, can be added
after rejection of
books
542 68 145 Addition under 68 CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath SC 1968 1968-LL-0801 72 ITR 194, 196 (SC). Whether in a given case the Assessing Officer may tax the cash credit entered in the books of
simultaneusly with Prasad account of the business, and at the same time estimate the profit must, however, depend upon
estimation of profit the facts of each case
after rejection of
books
543 68 145 Addition under 68 CIT v. Maduri Rajaiahgari AP 1975 1975-LL-1212-3 120 ITR 294 (AP). Where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined, and
simultaneusly with Kistaiah in such a case certain cash credits are found, the Assessing Officer may be precluded from
estimation of profit adding the said unexplained cash credit as undisclosed income from the business, the income
after rejection of of which was determined on estimate basis. But where the unexplained cash credits are not
books referable to the business income of the assessee which was estimated, the Assessing Officer is
not precluded from treating the unexplained cash credit as income from any other source

544 68 145 Addition under 68 CIT v. Daluram Pannalal Modi MP 1980 1980-LL-0124-2 129 ITR 398 (MP) It was held that unless the assessee shows by adducing satisfactory evidence that the cash
simultaneusly with credits were referable to the undisclosed income of the known or disclosed source, namely, the
estimation of profit business, income from which had already been estimated, the Tribunal cannot assume that
after rejection of once the business income was estimated, the unexplained cash credit is covered by the income
books so estimated.
545 145 68 GP Rate CIT Vs G.S. Tiwari & Co. Allahabad High 2013 2013-LL-0530-38 [2014] 41 taxmann.com 17 High Court held that in an appropriate case, Assessing Officer can make addition in respect of
Court (Allahabad)/[2014] 220 Taxman 111 both cash credits under section 68 as well as business income estimated by him under section
(Allahabad)(MAG.)/[2013] 357 ITR 651 44AD after rejecting books of account maintained by assessee finding those books as
(Allahabad) unreliable
546 145 GP Rate Tvl. ITD Cementation India Ltd. Madras High Court 2018 Other Acts [2018] 90 taxmann.com 87 (Madras) Tribunal verified audited Profit & Loss statement and Balance Sheet of assessee/revision
Vs State of Tamilnadu petitioner, for relevant years and held that adoption of notional 10 per cent Gross Profit on
purchase value to arrive at deemed sales turnover by Assessing Officer was correct. High
Court held that same did not call for any interference
547 145 GP Rate PCIT Vs Praveen Kumar Jain MP High Court 2018 2018-LL-0305-21 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 26 (Madhya High Court held that where Tribunal determined Net profit ratio of assessee considering factors
Pradesh) such as past tax history of assessee, job work receipts of assessee in earlier assessment
years, which substantially reduced during relevant assessment year, same was justified

548 145 GP Rate Sanjay Kundu Vs CIT P&H High Court 2017 2017-LL-0515-76 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 575 (Punjab & Despite various opportunities given, assessee, civil contractor failed to produce books of
Haryana)/[2017] 397 ITR 371 (Punjab & account and relevant vouchers and there had been a lot of variation in profit rate of assessee
Haryana) during different years. High Court held that AO was justified in rejecting audited balance-sheet
filed by assessee and making assessment by applying net profit rate of 12 per cent

549 145 GP Rate Sanjay Kundu Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1106-33 2017-TIOL-413-SC-IT The Assessee had preferred present SLP challenging the judgment, whereby the High Court
had held that when there had been lot of variation in profit rate of Assessee previous years,
then no benefit can be derived by him by claiming profit rate as applicable then, in absence of
production of books of account. Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, thus concurring with the
opinion of High Court.
550 145 GP Rate MAYUR SHEET GRAH PVT Allahabad High 2018 2018-LL-1003-63 2018-TIOL-2128-HC-ALL-IT Estimated income determined on the basis of corroborative statements needs no interference, if
LTD VS CIT Court taxpayer himself was at fault in failing to furnish details of payments/receipts made during the
year
551 145 interest on accrual STATE FARMING Kerala High Court 2018 Not Available 2018-TIOL-2463-HC-KERALA-IT The taxpayer following mercantile system of accounting, is bound to record interest accrued
basis in mercantile CORPORATION OF KERALA during relevant year under consideration
system LTD. Vs ACIT
 39

552 145 mercantile system for Ace Real Estate & Developers Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1119-51 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 228 High Court held that where assessee, engaged in business of land development, had been
all projects Vs ACIT Court (Bombay)/[2019] 260 Taxman 37 (Bombay) consistently following mercantile system of accounting in respect of all its projects, assessee
was not justified in adopting cash system of accounting in respect of only one project

553 145A proviso has Chhata Sugar Company Ltd Kerala 2018 2018-LL-0716-14 [2019] 104 taxmann.com 206 (Allahabad), HC observes that the assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, further
retrospective [TS-400-HC-2018(ALL)] observes that in terms of Central Excise Act provisions, the excise duty becomes payable as
application soon as excisable goods are manufactured; Rules that in view of Sec. 145A, “the true value of
closing stock would include any tax duty, cess or having fully paid, payable or incurred by
assessee to bring the goods to the place of its location and condition as on the date of
valuation…”; Holds that Sec. 145A provision, though inserted vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 is
clarificatory in nature, and would therefore be applicable even for AYs prior to AY 1999-2000

554 147 263 Orders obtained by Hamja Raji Vs State of Kerala & SC Other Acts (2006) 7 SCC 416 It has been observed that a decision obtained by playing a fraud on Court is liable to be set
farud or suppression ors aside on the basic principle that the party who secured such a decision by fraud cannot be
of material fact-Null allowed to enjoy its fruits.

555 147 263 Orders obtained by A.V.Papayya Sastry and Others Other Acts (2007) 4 SCC 221 In reported in also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that fraud vitiates all judicial acts
farud or suppression Vs. Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh whether in rem or in personam and that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud has to
of material fact-Null and others be treated as non-est and nullity, whether by the Court of first instance or by the final Court and
that the same can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in
collateral proceedings.In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. Bhagwan Das
(dead) By Lrs reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 511, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
again reiterated the point that a judgment or decree obtained by fraud either in the first court or
in the highest Court, is a nullity in the eye of law

556 147 no review of CIT Vs Sun Engineering Works Supreme Court 1992 1992-LL-0917 [1992] 64 Taxman 442 (SC)/[1992] 198 ITR In reassessment proceedings under section 147 assessee cannot seek a review of concluded
concluded item (P.) Ltd 297 (SC)/[1992] 107 CTR 209 (SC) item, unconnected with escapement of income for purpose of computation of escaped income.

557 147 prima facie material Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-1217-6 [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC)/[1999] 152 CTR In determining whether commencement of reassessment proceedings was valid it has only to
ITO And Others 418 (SC) be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department
could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be
considered at this stage
558 147 points not decided Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High 2009 2009-LL-0430-3 [2009] 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change
Court CTR 283 (Bombay) of opinion. Assessment reopened validly
559 147 basewd on Supreme Kartikeya International v. CIT Allahabad High 2010 2010-LL-0721-9 [2011] 10 taxmann.com 607 Reopening Valid due to recent High Court or Supreme Court decision. Decision of Apex Court
Court decision Court (Allahabad)/[2011] 199 Taxman 63 which declares law from very beginning of existence of provision itself constitutes material to
(Allahabad)(MAG.)/[2010] 329 ITR 539 reopen proceeding under section 147
(Allahabad)
560 147 not asked for reasons CIT v. Safetag International Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0203-2 [2011] 332 ITR 622 (Del) If assessee does not ask for the reasons recorded and object to reopening, ITAT cannot
recorded India Pvt. Ltd. remand to Assessing officer and give assessee another opportunity. Law does not mandate the
AO to suo moto supply the copy of those "reasons to believe‟ to the assessee

561 147 154 154 proceedings CIT v. India Sea Foods Kerala High Court 2011 2011-LL-0117-2 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 500 (Kerala)/[2011] The fact that there were section 154 proceedings is not a bar to the section 147
pending 332 ITR 424 (Kerala)/[2011] 242 CTR 550
(Kerala)
562 147 search of another Yogendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0926-124 51 taxmann.com 383 (SC)/[2014] 227 Subsequent to completion of original assessment, Assessing Officer, on basis of search carried
person Taxman 374 out in case of another person, came to know that loan transactions of assessee with a finance
company were bogus as said company was engaged in providing accommodation entries.
Supreme Court held that it being a fresh information, he was justified in initiating reassessment
proceeding in case of assessee
563 147 143(2) 143(2) not issued - CIT Vs Humdol Wedag India Calcua High Court 2014 2014-LL-0408-24 2014-TIOL-658-HC-KOL-IT Even assuming that the order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act
set aside not nullify Pvt Ltd was passed by the Assessing Officer without notice or proper notice under section 143(2) of the
Income Tax Act the omission could have been a reason for setting aside the order of
assessment, but that could not have been a reason, in the facts and circumstances of this
case, for nullifying the exercise under section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

564 147 143(2) 143(2) not mandatory CIT Vs Madhya Bharat Energy Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0711-36 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 557 (Delhi)/[2011] Issuance of notice u/s 143(2) subsequent to 148 notice not mandatory
Corporation Ltd. 337 ITR 389 (Delhi)/[2011] 245 CTR 35
(Delhi)
 40

565 147 conditions fulfilled ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Supreme Court 2007 2007-LL-0523-1 [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 So long as the conditions of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate
Brokers (P.) Ltd ITR 500 (SC)/[2007] 210 CTR 30 (SC) proceedings under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the
Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings, even when intimation under
section 143(1) has been issued ADANI EXPORTS v. DCIT[1999] 240 ITR 224 (Guj)
distinguished.

566 147 intimation from audit R.K. Malhotra ITO Vs Supreme Court 1977 1977-LL-0811-3 [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC) The intimation which the Income-tax Officer received from the audit department would
department Kasturbhai Lalbhai constitute "information" within the meaning of section 147(b)
567 147 likelihood of different Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-1223-1 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 259 (Bombay), The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped
view Court 2017-TIOL-92-HC-MUM-IT income, will not debar the AO from exercising his jurisdiction to assess the assessee on
reopening notice
568 147 proximate link with Amsa India Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0309-40 2017-TIOL-603-HC-DEL-IT The department can reassess the returns furnished by the assessee if the AO has a reason to
concealed income believe that the facts have a proximate link with the assessee's concealed income

569 147 meagre income of Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-1201-41 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 322 (Delhi)/[2017] The assessee-company furnished only cheque numbers, but failed to provide bank details of
share applicants 390 ITR 456 (Delhi) share applicants and it was found that share applicants had meagre income while investing
huge sum of Rs. 8 crores. High Court held that re-opening was justified
570 147 meagre income of Aravali Infrapower Ltd. Vs DCIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0127-10 2017-TIOL-42-SC-IT Supreme Court confirmed the decision of High Court, whereby it was held that reopening of
share applicants assessment is justified, when the bank statements as well as the ITR form disclosing returns,
raises more questions than satisfying the queries already raised.
571 147 intimation from audit CIT Vs P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-1001-3 [1999] 103 Taxman 294 (SC)/[1999] 237 Audit party had merely pointed out a fact which had been overlooked by Assessing Officer and
department ITR 13 (SC)/[1999] 155 CTR 538 (SC) this was not a case of information on a question of law. Reopening of case under section
147(b) on basis of factual information given by internal audit party was valid in law

572 147 intimation from audit Dalmia Brothers (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-1123-39 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 336 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that where audit objection on basis of which assessment was reopened was
department CIT 204 Taxman 83 (Delhi)(MAG.) available in assessment records, assessee cannot challenge reassessment proceedings on
ground that it was unaware of same
573 147 failure to Pranawa Leafin (P.) Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2013 2013-LL-0314-35 [2013] 33 taxmann.com 454 High Court held that where there was failure on part of assessee to make true and complete
makecomplete DCIT Court (Bombay)/[2013] 215 Taxman 109 disclosure in respect of share transactions entered into by it, in view of proviso to section 147,
disclosure in respect (Bombay)(MAG.) Assessing Officer was justified in initiating reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four
of share transactions years from end of relevant assessment year

574 147 54EC dates not Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2011 2011-LL-1108-2 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 190 High Court held that reassessment was valid where in original return assessee claimed
disclosed ACIT Court (Bombay)/[2012] 204 Taxman 347 exemption under section 54EC but did not disclose dates on which amounts were invested in
(Bombay)/[2012] 348 ITR 439 specified securities
(Bombay)/[2012] 246 CTR 31 (Bombay)
575 147 specific document Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Lt Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0228-226 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] High Court held that in terms of section 148, law only requires that information or material on
not to be d. Vs ACIT 223 Taxman 181 (Delhi)(MAG)/[2014] 362 which Assessing Officer records his or her satisfaction has to be communicated to assessee,
communicated ITR 417 (Delhi) without mandating disclosure of any specific document
576 147 HSBC Geneva Soignee R Kothari Vs DCIT Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-0405-50 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 340 High Court held that initiation of reopening against a non-resident assessee on the basis of
Court (Bombay)/[2016] 386 ITR 466 "Base note" obtained by the French Government under Indo France DTAA indicating huge
(Bombay)/[2016] 285 CTR 230 (Bombay), balance in a foreign bank account, is justified, in case the assessee is not ready to submit a
2016-TIOL-2752-HC-MUM-IT consent waiver form so as to enable the Department to find out alleged source of income

577 147 information received PCIT Vs Paramount Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0214-100 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 409 (Delhi)/[2017]
High Court held that information regarding bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from
from DRI from CCE Communication (P.) Ltd. 392 ITR 444 (Delhi) CCE which was passed on to revenue authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to
initiate valid reassessment proceedings
578 147 information received Paramount Communication (P.) Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0714 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 300 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that information regarding
from DRI from CCE Ltd. Vs PCIT 250 Taxman 100 (SC), 2017-TIOL-253-SC- bogus purchase by assessee received by DRI from CCE which was passed on to revenue
IT authorities was 'tangible material outside record' to initiate valid reassessment proceedings

579 147 information received Amit Polyprints (P.) Ltd. Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0507-50 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 393 (Gujarat) High Court held that where reassessment proceedings were initiated on basis of information
from Investigation DCIT received from Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount from shell
wing companies working as an accommodation entry provider, reassessment could not be held
unjustified
580 147 information received Ankit Financial Services Ltd. Vs Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-1229-65 [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat) High Court held that where material recovered in search of another person indicated that
from Investigation DCIT assessee had received bogus share applications through accommodation entries, since
wing assessee was beneficiary, initiation of re-opening was justified
581 147 information received Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0609-56 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 82 (Gujarat)/[2017] High Court held that where reassessment was made on basis of information received from
from Investigation DCIT 249 Taxman 568 (Gujarat)/[2018] 405 ITR Principal DIT (Investigation) that assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries by way of
wing 512 (Gujarat) share application provided by a third party, same was justified
 41

582 147 agricultural income in Greenwell Orchard Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0606-31 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 461 (Gujarat) High Court held that where in a subsequent year assessee could not prove agricultural income
subsequent year by way of sale of teakwood and, thus, disclosed unaccounted income, in view of fact that
income for earlier year under consideration was from similar source, reopening of assessment
was justified
583 147 difference in WDV J B Amin & Brothers (HUF) Vs Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-1222-12 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 222 High Court held that where opening WDV of land was shown by assessee at lesser amount in
ITO Court (Bombay)/[2018] 253 Taxman 229 its statement of fixed accounts but, while filling return of income, assessee had shown cost of
(Bombay), 2018-TIOL-92-HC-MUM-IT land at much higher amount, reassessment was justified
584 147 Addition on issues N. Govindaraju vs. ITO Karanataka 2015 2015-LL-0701-5 [2015] 60 taxmann.com 333 If notice under section 148(2) is found to be valid, then addition can be made on all grounds or
not covered by (Karnataka)/[2015] 233 Taxman 376 issues which may come to notice of Assessing Officer subsequently during course of
reasons (Karnataka)/[2015] 377 ITR 243 proceedings under section 147, even though reason for notice for 'such income' which may
(Karnataka)/[2015] 280 CTR 316 have escaped assessment, may not survive
(Karnataka), TS-5339-HC-Kar
585 147 Full & true disclosure Tata Ceramics Ltd Kerala 2018 2018-LL-0308-47 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 124 (Kerala)/[2018] Mere P&L Account disclosure cannot absolve assessee's 'full disclosure' obligation u/s. 147
403 ITR 389 (Kerala), TS-138-HC-
2018(KER)]
586 147 Addition on issues MALAYALA MANORAMA CO Kerala 2018 2018-LL-0529-20 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 136 (Kerala)/[2018] Re-assessment on issues totally unconnected with reasons recorded u/s. 148(2) held valid
not covered by LTD 258 Taxman 238 (Kerala)/[2019] 410 ITR
reasons 423 (Kerala),
TS-351-HC-2018(KER)]
587 147 JCIT approval Mayurbhai Mangaldas Patel Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0319-56 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 220 In this case Joint Commissioner had, in clear terms, expressed his satisfaction that on basis of
required, also ITO (Gujarat)/[2018] 256 Taxman 91 reasons recorded by Assessing Officer, it was a fit case for issuance of notice for reopening
approved by CIT (Gujarat)/[2018] 407 ITR 238 assessment under section 148. High Court held that merely because for some erroneous
(Gujarat)/[2018] 302 CTR 349 (Gujarat) reason, papers were also placed before Commissioner who also recorded similar satisfaction,
reassessment proceedings would not be vitiated
588 147 no scrutiny of return Indu Lata Rangwala Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0518-52 [2017]80taxmann.com102(Delhi)/[2016] 384 High Court held that where initial return of income is processed under section 143(1), it is not
ITR 337 (Delhi)/[2016] 286 CTR 474 (Delhi) necessary in such a case for Assessing Officer to come across some fresh tangible material to
form 'reasons to believe' that income has escaped assessment
589 147 GKN Drive shaft Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0203-141 [2017] 78 taxmann.com 201 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where reopening of
ITO 245 Taxman 333 (SC) assessment u/s 147 was held to be valid despite the AO not passing speaking order against
objections filed by the assessee
590 147 GKN Drive shaft Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel Vs Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0921-203 [2016] 74 taxmann.com 225 It is true that in the communications, the petitioner has requested for supply of documents.
ITO (Gujarat)/[2017] 393 ITR 612 (Gujarat) However, the petitioner also raised the objections to the Assessing Officer exercising the
powers of reassessment. In true spirit if these communications were examined, the Assessing
Officer would have realised that the assessee was objecting to the process of reopening. In
terms of decision of Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259
ITR 19/[2002] 125 Taxman 963, the Assessing Officer ought to have disposed of the
objections. Ordinarily, we would have insisted on Assessing Officer doing so. However, facts in
the present case are somewhat peculiar and no useful purpose would be served in ensuring
only cosmetic purpose of completion of formality and then inviting a fresh litigation. Under the
circumstances, we have examined the merits of the petitioner's challenge to the reopening also

591 147 GKN Drive shaft Palakkad Dist. Co-operative Kerala High Court 2016 2016-LL-1207-113 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 349 (Kerala)/[2017] Instead of passing an order on reply given with respect to reason to believe, Assessing Officer
Bank Ltd. Vs Addl.CIT 392 ITR 539 (Kerala)/[2017] 293 CTR 328 straight away proceeded to pass a composite order stating reasons for reopening of
(Kerala) assessment as well as proceeding to pass an order of assessment after reopening same. It
was held that where a composite order is passed, it has to be verified whether it is per se illegal
or whether any prejudice will be caused to assessee. In this case, right to appeal against
reopening of assessment as well as assessment proceedings could be taken up in a regular
appeal, hence, no prejudice would be caused to assessee on account of a composite order
being passed.
592 147 GKN Drive shaft Home Finders Housing Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 18.5.18 2018-LL-0518-17 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 84 (SC)/[2018] 256 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that non-compliance of
ITO Taxman 59 (SC) direction of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963 that
on receipt of objection given by assessee to notice under section 148, Assessing Officer is
bound to dispose of objections by passing a speaking order, would not make reassessment
order void ab initio
593 147 assessee cannot ask Murlibhai Fatandas Sawlani Vs Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0119-134 2016-TIOL-370-HC-AHM-IT It is not open to the assessee to object to the reopening by asking the AO to produce the
source of information ITO source from where the AO has gathered the information for forming a belief that income
chargeable to tax has escaped assessment
594 147 investment in Dr Chhangur Rai Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0322-159 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 458 Non-disclosure of corresponding income by the assessee so as to prove the source of
property Court (Allahabad)/[2017] 394 ITR 611 investment in residential property, is sufficient for belief of escaped assessment
(Allahabad), 2017-TIOL-660-HC-ALL-IT
595 147 GKN Drive shaft - Mohammedally Noorbhoy Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0209-1 2017-TIOL-341-HC-MUM-IT Assessment cannot be termed as invalid for non consideration of assessee's objections, if there
undue delay Bandukwala Trust Vs ITO Court was undue delay on the part of assessee in objecting to the reasons
 42

596 147 cannot explain Paramount Intercontinental Pvt Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0207-80 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 595 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that when assessee himself is unable to satisfactorily explain correctness of
correctness of entries Ltd Vs ITO 392 ITR 505 (Delhi), 2017-TIOL-376-HC- the entries made in his books, he cannot challenge the reassessment notice issued u/s 147
DEL-IT
597 147 not debited financial Ajanta Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT Gujarat High Court 2017 2016-LL-1229-63 2017-TIOL-126-HC-AHM-IT Reopening is justified on the basis that while claiming deduction u/s 80IA, the assessee had not
charges and debited any financial charges and administrative expenses to the Windmill Division while
administrative computing profits from Windmill Division, thereby failing to disclose true facts necessary for
expenses assessment
598 147 not filed return Mona Mahesh Bhojani Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0710-19 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 363 (Gujarat), 2017- Reopening initiated in case of an assessee who had not filed his return, cannot be claimed by
TIOL-1423-HC-AHM-IT the assessee to be based on 'change of opinion'. when the AO has tangible material at his
command to form a bonafide belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the
writ court would not interfere with the formation of such belief unless it is shown to be wholly
perverse
599 147 not filed return Mona Mahesh Bhojani Vs ITO Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0911-17 2017-TIOL-345-SC-IT SLP dismissed against appeal challenging the judgment, whereby the High Court had held that
reopening initiated in case of an assessee who had not filed his return, could not be claimed by
the assessee to be based on 'change of opinion'. The Assessee had also challenged the action
of High Court in holding that when the AO had tangible material at his command to form a
bonafide belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, the writ court would
not interfere with the formation of such belief unless it is shown to be wholly perverse.

600 147 merger/amalgamatio SC Johnson Products (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 43070 2017-LL-1208 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 317 (Delhi)/[2018] High Court held that even where there were scrutiny assessments, reassessment would be
n Vs ACIT 253 Taxman 108 (Delhi)/[2018] 400 ITR permissible if in succeeding year, Assessing Officer noticed that though there was
426 (Delhi) merger/amalgamation, assessee had, in computing depreciation on goodwill, instead of
adopting 'pooling of assets' method, adopted a wrong method of 'purchase'
601 147 fair market value Sonia Goel Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0828-1 2017-TIOL-1706-HC-DEL-IT Reopening proceedings initiated on account of differences in disclosure of sale consideration
determined by DVO made by Assessee to that of fair market value determined by DVO justified

602 147 information received Ankit Agrochem (P.) Ltd. Vs Rajasthan High 2018 2017-LL-1218-2 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 45 DIT informed that assessee-company had received share application money from several
from Investigation JCIT Court (Rajasthan)/[2018] 253 Taxman 141 entities which were only engaged in business of providing bogus accommodation entries to
wing (Rajasthan) beneficiary concerns. High Court held that reassessment on basis of said information was
justified
603 147 2(22)(e) 2(22)(e) conditions Sunrise Broking (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0920-2 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 149 Assessee claimed that no amount could be taxed in hands of assessee treating it as deemed
not satisfied (Gujarat)/[2018] 400 ITR 337 (Gujarat) dividend if it was not a shareholder of payee company but had not disputed that other
conditions of section 2(22)(e) were satisfied in its case and return of assessee was accepted
without scrutiny. High Court held that reassessment was justified
604 147 69C bogus purchases Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0911-16 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 69 (Gujarat)/[2017] High Court held that where purchases made by assessee from a properietory concern were
DCIT 250 Taxman 482 (Gujarat) bogus and entries were in nature of accomodation entries, merely because assessee had
disclosed such entries in return filed and also showed such purchases in books of accounts
would hardly be sufficient to advance arguments of full and true disclosure by assessee

605 147 69B voluntary disclosure PCIT Vs Laxmiraj Distributors Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0906-4 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 357 High Court held that where pursuant to survey, assessee company had voluntarily disclosed
in survey (P.) Ltd. (Gujarat)/[2017] 250 Taxman 455 certain amount as its undisclosed income towards allotment of shares to several companies but
(Gujarat)/[2019] 410 ITR 495 (Gujarat) director of assessee company failed to give details of investors of companies and investment
made by them, reassessment was justified
606 147 misrepresentation of Eureka Stock and Share Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0501-4 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 10 (SC)/[2017] 248 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where originally loss
fact Broking Services Ltd. Vs CIT Taxman 81 (SC) on account of sale of shares was allowed on misrepresentation of fact that impugned loss was
connected with sharebroking business of assessee, re-opening of assessment treating said
loss as speculative was justified
607 147 information received Pushpak Bullion (P.) Ltd. Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0822-3 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 84 (Gujarat)/[2017] High Court held that where investigation wing of department had during course of investigation
from Investigation DCIT (Entry Receiver) 250 Taxman 201 (Gujarat) in case of a third party found that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries and
wing bogus bills, and assessee had made sizeable purchases from him, reopening notice against
assessee was justified
608 147 setting aside order of Krishna Developers And Co Vs Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0208-1 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 306 (SC)/[2018] Merely because reasons recorded by Assessing Officer proceeded on same basis on which it
assessment DCIT 254 Taxman 125 (SC), 2018-TIOL-51-SC- initially desired to make additions but which failed on account of setting aside order of
IT assessment, it would not preclude Assessing Officer from carrying out exercise of reopening of
assessment; SLP dismissed
609 147 292B notice issued to a Sky Light Hospitality LLP Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0202-91 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi)/[2018] Notice under Section 147/148 of the Act dated 30.03.2017 was addressed and issued to M/s
dead juristic person ACIT 254 Taxman 109 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had ceased to exist and was dissolved on
296 (Delhi)/[2018] 303 CTR 131 (Delhi) 13.05.2016. This notice issued to a dead juristic person is valid in the eyes of law. Section
292B of the Act is applicable. Spice Infotainment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012)
247 CTR 500 distinguished
 43

610 147 improper service of CIT Vs Sudev Industries Ltd. Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0531-5 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 373 (Delhi)/[2018] The assessee challenged validity of reassessment proceeding on ground that service of notice
notice; appeared 256 Taxman 317 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR by Inspector at factory premises on security guard was not proper service under provisions of
before AO 325 (Delhi) section 282(2). High Court held that in view of fact that assessee raised said plea of improper
service of notice for first time before Tribunal and, moreover, in response to notice issued
under section 148, one director of assessee-company had appeared before Assessing Officer,
it could be concluded that provisions of section 292B would apply to assessee's case and, thus,
assessment proceedings could not be regarded as invalid for want of proper service of notice

611 147 improper service of CIT Vs Sudev Industries Ltd. Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1022 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 109 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where assessee
notice; appeared 259 Taxman 221 (SC) challenged validity of reassessment proceeding on ground that service of notice by Inspector at
before AO factory premises on security guard was not proper service under provisions of section 282(2),
since in response to notice issued under section 148, one director of assessee-company had
appeared before Assessing Officer, it could be concluded that provisions of section 292B would
apply to assessee's case and, thus, assessment proceedings could not be regarded as invalid
for want of proper service of notice

612 147 Explanation 3 Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 18.5.18 2018-LL-0518-16 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 96 (SC)/[2018] 256 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that in view of doubt as to
PCIT Taxman 60 (SC) accuracy of interpretation of section 147 read with Explanation 3, by different High Courts,
matter should be referred to Full Bench
613 147 information received Aradhna Estate (P.) Ltd.Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0220-52 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 119 In this case, reassessment proceedings were initiated on basis of information received from
from Investigation DCIT (Gujarat)/[2018] 254 Taxman 1 (Gujarat) Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount from shell companies working as
wing an accommodation entry provider. High Court held that merely because these transactions
were scrutinised by Assessing Officer during original assessment, reassessment could not be
held unjustified
614 147 no change of opinion Jayant Security & Finance Ltd. Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0212-107 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 181 High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings on basis of information received from
if earlier disclosures (Gujarat)/[2018] 254 Taxman 81 (Gujarat) Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount as a loan from a company,
are untrue working as entry operator and earning bogus funds to provide advances to various person

615 147 information received Rakesh Gupta Vs CIT P&H High Court 2018 2018-LL-0427-89 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 271 (Punjab & High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where Assessing Officer received
from Investigation Haryana)/[2018] 405 ITR 213 (Punjab & information from Principle Director of Income Tax (Investigation) that assessee had received
wing Haryana) bogus loss from his broker by client code modification
616 147 objection to Abhishek Jain Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0601-125 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 355 (Delhi)/[2018] In terms of section 124(3)(b) jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer cannot be called in question by
jurisdiction within a 405 ITR 1 (Delhi), 2018-TIOL-1059-HC- an assessee after expiry of one month from date on which he was served with a notice for
month DEL-IT reopening assessment under section 148
617 147 information received Aishwarya Dying Mills Pvt Ltd Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0326-46 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 430 (Gujarat), 2018- AO's fishing inquiry is valid if he receives certain information from the Investigation Wing and
from Investigation Vs DCIT TIOL-857-HC-AHM-IT forms an opinion before issuance of re-assessment notice
wing
618 147 information received Aishwarya Dying Mills Pvt Ltd Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0803-41 2018-TIOL-311-SC-IT Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that AO's fishing inquiry is
from Investigation Vs DCIT valid if he receives certain information from the Investigation Wing and forms an opinion before
wing issuance of re-assessment notice
619 147 additional income Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0827-65 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 637 (Delhi) High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where pursuant to issuance of re-
declared in 147 Vs DCIT assessment notice, assessee itself accepted that original return filed by it was incorrect for
return reason that assessee had failed to disclose income earned by way of royalty and fee for
technical service and, accordingly, declared additional income
620 147 Submission in son's Smt S Rajalakshmi Vs ITO Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1025-14 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 68 Submission made by the son of the assessee during appellate proceedings of his individual
assessment Court (Bombay)/[2019] 260 Taxman 205 case that since he was only second holder of investments in mutual funds, the amounts should
(Bombay)/[2018] 409 ITR 157 (Bombay), not be brought to tax in his hand, but in the hands of assessee, constitute 'reason to believe'
2018-TIOL-2324-HC-MUM-IT that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. Even though exempt income from
the mutual funds doesn't form part of assessee's income tax return, failure to disclose source of
such investment can be said to be a sufficient reason for reopening of assessment by the AO
u/s 147
621 147 no scrutiny ABHA VINAYKUMAR JAIN VS Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0925-23 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 6 (Gujarat), 2018- When no scrutiny was undertaken in case of assessee, reopening of assessment by the AO
ITO TIOL-2065-HC-AHM-IT cannot be said to be hit by principle of change of opinion, since the AO is not supposed to
formed an opinion in such case. Pendency of a suit regarding disputed land transaction in a
Civil Court will not obstruct the AO to go for reopening, since the same may render the
assessment time barred
622 147 information received Etiam Emedia Ltd. Vs ITO MP High Court 2018 2018-LL-1219-55 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 231 (Madhya Assessing Officer had specific information from DIT (Investigation) that assessee company was
from Investigation Pradesh)/[2019] 261 Taxman 88 (Madhya merely a dummy concern of a person who allegedly used dummy companies for routing his
wing Pradesh) unaccounted money and, further, assessee also had certain amount of bogus share
application. High Court held that there was material on basis of which notice under section 148
could be issued
 44

623 147 information based on Multi Commodity Exchange of Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1214-8 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 13 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where on
special audit, no India Ltd. Vs DCIT 260 Taxman 243 (SC) examination of special audit report, filed after passing of original assessment order, it was
change of opinion found that claims made by assessee towards placement fees paid to its subsidiaries,
advertisement expenses and donations paid to a charitable trust under section 80G were prima
facie bogus as assessee could not substantiate their genuineness by providing relevant
documents and evidences, reassessment notice on basis of said report was justified

624 147 information received Avirat Star Homes Venture (P.) Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1213-49 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 60 In this case information was received from investigation wing about certain companies that they
from Investigation Ltd. Vs ITO Court (Bombay)/[2019] 261 Taxman 184 were involved in giving accommodation entries of various natures to several beneficiaries and
wing (Bombay)/[2019] 411 ITR 321 (Bombay) assessee was one of them. High Court held that information supplied by investigation wing to
Assessing Officer, thus, formed a prima facie basis to enable Assessing Officer to form a belief
of income chargeable tax having escaped assessment

625 147 two sets of reason Himmatbhai M. Viradiya Vs ITO Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-1213-45 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 172 High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where assessee challenged validity
Court (Bombay)/[2019] 261 Taxman 132 of reassessment proceedings on ground that Assessing Officer had supplied two sets of
(Bombay) reason, in view of fact that gist of reasons recorded in both sets of communications sent to
assessee were same, assessee's objection was to be rejected
626 147 143(2) no return filed, 143(2) PCIT Vs Broadway Shoe Co. J&K High Court 2018 2018-LL-1011-16 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 83 (Jammu & High Court held that where no return was filed in compliance of notice issued under section
not required Kashmir)/[2018] 259 Taxman 223 (Jammu 148, issuing of notice under section 143(2) was not required for making assessment
& Kashmir)
627 147 Change of Opinion ASWANI ENTERPRISES VS Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0925-67 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 178 (Madras), Having regard to prima facie fact that the assessee didn't disclose all necessary materials
ACIT 2018-TIOL-2245-HC-MAD-IT during original assessment, which is also confirmed by both the appellate authorities, decision
of the AO to reopen the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 cannot be taken as mere change
of opinion
628 147 2(22)(e) reasonable belief Vasudev Fatandas Vaswani Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-1029-43 2018-TIOL-2305-HC-AHM-IT When issuing notice for re-opening assessment, the AO is only required to show reasonable
ITO belief that income escaped assessment & is not required to establish the same beyond
reasonable doubt
629 147 Approval Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0509-100 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 428 (Gujarat) High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where revenue produced bunch of
DCIT documents to suggest that entire proposal of reopening of assessment along with reasons
recorded by Assessing Officer for same were placed before Additional Commissioner who,
upon perusal of same, recorded his satisfaction that it was a fit case for issuance of notice for
reopening assessment
630 147 Trust Hinduja Foundation Vs ITO Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0215-52 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 337 The assessee, a registered trust, filed return disclosing NIL income after taking benefit of
Court (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 111 section 11 and Assessing Officer passed assessment order under section 143(3) accepting
(Bombay) declared income. Subsequently he reopened said assessment for reason that assessee had
received sizable donation from one 'H', which was also a registered trust, and spent such sum
on officers/directors of 'H' and claimed same as reimbursement of expenditure and such receipt
was hit by section 13(3)(b). High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings

631 147 Beyond four years Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Supreme Court 2012 2011-LL-0729-7 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 5 (SC)/[2012] 206 Supreme Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where assessee having not
v. Dy. CIT Taxman 33 (SC)(MAG.)/[2012] 340 ITR 64 pointed out during assessment proceedings about expenses incurred relatable to tax free
(SC)/[2012] 247 CTR 316 (SC) income u/s 14A there was omission and failure on its part to disclose fully and truly material
facts
632 147 share premium Max Ventures Investments Delhi High Court 2019 2019-LL-0327-23 [2019] 105 taxmann.com 124 (Delhi)/[2019] The assessee could not explain allotment of shares in excess of authroised capital where there
Holdings (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO 263 Taxman 401 (Delhi) was no SEBI approval for same and assessee could also not justify premium of 457 per cent
over face value of shares and also genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of
individual providing money. High Court held reassessment notice was justified

633 147 Beyond four years Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0214 [2011] 10 taxmann.com 2 (Delhi)/[2011] 197 High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where assessee having not pointed
v. Dy. CIT Taxman 415 (Delhi)/[2012] 340 ITR 53 out during assessment proceedings about expenses incurred relatable to tax free income u/s
(Delhi)/[2012] 247 CTR 322 (Delhi) 14A there was omission and failure on its part to disclose fully and truly material facts

634 147 Beyond four years CIT Vs Kiranbhai Jamnadas Gujarat High Court 2012 2012-LL-1106-46 [2013] 39 taxmann.com 116 High Court held that assessment without scrutiny would mandate reassessment beyond 4 years
Sheth (HUF) (Gujarat)/[2014] 221 Taxman 19 even if assessee made true disclosure
(Gujarat)(MAG.)
635 147 Beyond four years Dishman Pharmaceuticals & Gujarat High Court 2011 2011-LL-0301 [2013] 30 taxmann.com 67 (Gujarat)/[2012] The assessee had shown an amount as loan from company. The assessee had not disclosed
Chemicals Ltd. Vs CIT 346 ITR 228 (Gujarat)/[2012] 253 CTR 306 that it had substantial interest in the company. Reassessment proceedings after four years to
(Gujarat) assess amount as deemed dividend was held to be valid (BEYOND FOUR YEARS)

636 147 Beyond four years Pranawa Leafin (P.) Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2013 2013-LL-0314-35 [2013] 33 taxmann.com 454 High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings even after expiry of four years where
DCIT Court (Bombay)/[2013] 215 Taxman 109 there was failure on part of assessee to make true and complete disclosure in respect of share
(Bombay)(MAG.) transactions entered into by it, in view of proviso to section 147
 45

637 147 Beyond four years New Delhi Television Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0810-5 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 136 (Delhi)/[2018] 1. Where assessee having created complex structure of various subsidiaries abroad, received
DCIT 405 ITR 132 (Delhi)/[2017] 298 CTR 230 certain amount through one of its subsidiary which had entered into a sham transaction of issue
(Delhi) of Step UP Coupon Bonds, AO was justified in reopening assessment by forming a prima facie
opinion that amount so received represented assessee's own unaccounted money 2. Where
AO reopened assessment taking a view that amount received by assessee from subsidiary
company represented its own unaccounted money, in view of declining net worth of assessee,
he was justified in passing order of provisional attachment of assessee's properties during
pendency of reassessment proceedings

638 147 Beyond four years Greater Mohali Area P&H High Court 2018 2018-LL-0427-130 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 441 (Punjab & After expiry of four years from end of relevant year, AO sought to reopen assessment on
Development Authority Vs DCIT Haryana) ground that assessee had received External Development Charges (EDC) from Land
Developers/Colonizers/Real Estate builders/Promoters which were not brought to ambit of tax
by assessee but were instead shown as a liability in its balance sheet. In view of fact that issue
relating to taxability of EDC was not considered by Assessing Officer at time of assessment
and, moreover, there was no proper disclosure of material facts, High Court upheld validity of
reassessment proceedings
639 147 Beyond four years Sonia Gandhi Vs ACIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0910-10 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 150 (Delhi)/[2018] Congress Party gave loan to AJL and assigned said loan to non-profit company YI which
257 Taxman 515 (Delhi)/[2018] 407 ITR subsequently issued shares to assessees at a price less than FMV. High Court held that non-
594 (Delhi) disclosure by assessees of allotment of shares in YI would be a reason to initiate reassessment
proceedings
640 147 Beyond four years Sun Direct TV Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1010-73 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 201 High Court held that completed assessment could be reopened within period of six years where
(Madras)/[2018] 259 Taxman 228 there were some information with department that share premium invested by foreign company
(Madras)/[2018] 409 ITR 49 (Madras) was income of assessee-company which had not been disclosed
641 147 Beyond four years South Asia FM Ltd. Vs ACIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1010-75 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 200 High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where on basis of information on
(Madras)/[2018] 259 Taxman 266 (Madras) record with revenue that assessee had received share capital which according to CBI were
revenue receipts camouflaged as capital receipts. Reasons to be recorded by Assessing
Officer for taking decision to reopen escaped assessment does not mean that such reasons are
to be communicated along with notice itself; very notice will not provide a cause of action for
assessee to file writ petitions
642 147 Beyond four years A Sridevi Vs ITO Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1203-32 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 434 High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where proceedings were initiated
(Madras)/[2019] 260 Taxman 181 against assessee on ground that assessee had advanced several crores of rupees to a party
(Madras)/[2018] 409 ITR 502 (Madras), but source of such amount was not explained and assessee had not filed balance sheet or
2018-TIOL-2246-HC-MAD-IT, statement of affairs related to such advance
643 147 150 correct cost of Senitax Chemicals Ltd. Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-1003-1 [2017] 87 taxmann.com 17 (Gujarat) High Court upheld initiation of reassessment proceedings where during appellate proceedings
acquisition before Commissioner (Appeals), assessee had itself taken a stand that correct cost of
acquisition should be lesser than what it had claimed before, and also produced documents in
support of same
644 153A additions not Filatex India Ltd Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2016 2014-LL-0714-30 [2014] 49 taxmann.com 465 (Delhi)/[2015] High Court held that during assessment under section 153A, additions need not be restricted or
restricted to 229 Taxman 555 (Delhi) limited to incriminating material, found during course of search. As per clause (iii) of
incriminating material Explanation 1 to section 115JB, while computing book profits, brought forward losses or
unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, is to be set off
645 153A 132(4) sworn statement B. Kishore Kumar Vs CIT Supreme Court 2015 2015-LL-0702-9 [2015] 62 taxmann.com 215 (SC)/[2015] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that since assessee
234 Taxman 771 (SC) himself had stated in sworn statement during search and seizure about his undisclosed income,
tax was to be levied on basis of admission without scrutinizing documents

646 153A additions not CIT Vs Anil Kumar Bhatia Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0807-47 [2012] 24 taxmann.com 98 (Delhi)/[2012] Post search reassessment in respect of all 6 years can be made even if original returns are
restricted to 211 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2013] 352 ITR already processed u/s 143(1)(a). Assessing Officer has power u/s 153A to make assessment
incriminating material 493 (Delhi) for all six years and compute total income of assessee, including undisclosed income,
notwithstanding that returns for these years have already been processed u/s 143(1)(a). During
assessment under section 153A, additions need not be restricted or limited to incriminating
material, found during course of search
647 153A 143(2) notice u/s 143(2) is Ashok Chaddha Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0727-8 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 387 (Delhi)/[2011] High Court held that issue of notice under section 143(2) is not mandatory for finalization of
not mandatory 337 ITR 399 (Delhi) assessment under section 153A
648 153A return must be filed CIT Vs St. Francis Clay Decor Kerala High Court 2016 2016-LL-0322-110 [2016] 70 taxmann.com 234 (Kerala)/[2016] Where notice is issued under section 153A, return must be filed even if no incriminating
Tiles 240 Taxman 168 (Kerala)/[2016] 385 ITR documents discovered during search. Neither under section 132 or under section 153A,
624 (Kerala)/[2016] 287 CTR 187 (Kerala) phraseology 'incriminating' is used by Parliament, therefore, any material unearthed during
search operations or any statement made during course of search by assessee is a valuable
piece of evidence in order to invoke section 153A
649 153A notice u/s 143(2) is Tarsem Singla Vs CIT P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-0218-80 [2017] 81 taxmann.com 347 (Punjab & Issuance of notice under section143(2) is not a mandatory requirement of in respect of search
not mandatory Haryana)/[2016] 385 ITR 138 (Punjab & assessment proceedings. Notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) issued beyond period of
Haryana) six months will not invalidate assessment
 46

650 153A additions not CIT Vs Chetan Das Lachman Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0807-48 25 taxmann.com 227 (Delhi)/[2012] 211 1. There is no condition in section 153A that additions should strictly be made on basis of
restricted to Das Taxman 61 (Delhi)/[2012] 254 CTR 392 evidence found in course of search or other post-search material or information available with
incriminating material Assessing Officer which can be related to evidence found
2. Seized material can also be relied upon to draw inference that there can be similar
transactions throughout period of six years covered by section 153A
651 153A hardship in filing Madugula Venu Vs DIT Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-1214-372 2013] 29 taxmann.com 200 (Delhi)/[2013] Notice issued under section 153A calling upon assessee to file returns for earlier six
return 215 Taxman 298 (Delhi)/[2014] 266 CTR assessment years cannot be challenged on ground that it would cause certain degree of
373 (Delhi) hardship to assessee
652 153A initiation of Canara Housing Development Karnataka High 2014 2014-LL-0725-194 49 taxmann.com 98 (Karnataka)/[2015] 274 High Court held that condition precedent for application of section 153A is that there should be
proceedings Co. Vs DCIT Court CTR 122 a search under section 132. However, initiation of proceedings is not dependent on any
undisclosed income being unearthed during such search
653 153A additions even E.N. Gopakumar Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2016 2016-LL-1003-49 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 215 (Kerala)/[2017] High Court held that assessment proceedings generated by issuance of a notice under section
without any 244 Taxman 21 (Kerala)/[2017] 390 ITR 153A(1)(a) can be concluded against interest of assessee including making additions even
incriminating material 131 (Kerala) without any incriminating material being available against assessee in search under section 132
on basis of which notice was issued under section 153A(1)(a)
654 153A Pursuant to search DR. A. V. Sreekumar Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0124-97 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 355 (Kerala)/[2018] Pursuant to search and enquiry unaccounted consideration from purchaser had been
and enquiry 253 Taxman 428 (Kerala)/[2018] 404 ITR unearthed. High Court held that it could not be said that other material already available with
unaccounted 642 (Kerala) Department had been relied upon in proceedings
consideration from
purchaser unearthed

655 153A statement recorded Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-1027-29 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 308 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that additions so made by Assessing Officer by rejecting books of account was
of assessee's son 245 Taxman 293 (Delhi)/[2017] 390 ITR justified where inferences drawn in respect of undeclared income of assessee were premised
496 (Delhi)/[2016] 290 CTR 361 (Delhi) on materials found as well as statements recorded by assessee's son in course of search
operations and assessee had not been able to show as to how estimation made by Assessing
Officer was arbitrary or unreasonable,
656 153A additions even CIT Vs Raj Kumar Arora Allahabad High 2014 2014-LL-0711-101 [2014] 52 taxmann.com 172 High Court held that AO has power to reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed
without any Court (Allahabad)/[2014] 367 ITR 517 (Allahabad) income found during search operation but also with regard to material available at time of
incriminating material original assessment

657 153A additions even CIT Vs Kesarwani Zarda Allahabad High 2016 2017-LL-0921-8 ITA No. 270 of 2014 High Court held that AO has power to reassess returns of assessee not only for undisclosed
without any Bhandar Sahson Alld. Court income found during search operation but also with regard to material available at time of
incriminating material original assessment

658 153A material seized from Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0312-44 2018-TIOL-580-HC-DEL-IT, ITA No.1003 of Upheld addition made on the basis of statements made by his brother Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta
brother & statement 2017 and the materials seized from his brother's premises, given that the premises were separate,
of brother though a common warrant under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued in
respect of both
659 153A material seized from Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs DCIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0831-100 2018-TIOL-350-SC-IT Upheld addition made on the basis of statements made by his brother Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta
brother & statement and the materials seized from his brother's premises, given that the premises were separate,
of brother though a common warrant under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued in
respect of both. SLP dismissed
660 153A non appearance Mahalaxmi Bullions Pvt Ltd Vs Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-1214-122 2017-TIOL-19-HC-DEL-IT When the assessee has neither appeared himself nor caused any appearance on his behalf on
CIT the additional dates of hearing, he cannot complain that its right to adduce additional evidence
was not properly appreciated
661 153A rejection of books; M/s Punjab Sind Dairy Products Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0217-9 2017-TIOL-83-SC-IT Rejection of books was sustainable, where the Assessee had failed to produce the Registers
estimation of income Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT indicating Production, Issuance and Consumption. It also upheld the estimation of income on
the basis of the material on record and the statements made by the employees and directors
during search and survey proceedings
662 153A rejection of books; M/s Punjab Sind Dairy Products Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-1213-41 2016-TIOL-3116-HC-MUM-IT 1.rejection of books is sustainable, where the Assessee failed to produce the Registers
estimation of income Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT Court indicating Production, Issuance and Consumption 2. estimation of income on the basis of the
material on record and the statements made by the employees and directors during search and
survey proceedings is not arbitrary
663 153A intimation not Chintels India Ltd Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0719-3 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 57 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that mere sending of intimation will not be treated as an assessment. A bogus
assessment 249 Taxman 630 (Delhi)/[2017] 397 ITR software transaction is not entitled to depreciation
416 (Delhi)/[2017] 297 CTR 574 (Delhi),
2017-TIOL-1366-HC-DEL-IT

664 153A 68 addition u/s 68 Satpal Goyal Vs CIT P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-0523-11 2016-TIOL-2559-HC-P&H-IT Addition made u/s 68 towards unexplained credits deserves to be sustained, where the
assessee has failed to prove the identity of the creditors, their capacity and genuineness of the
transactions in the matter
 47

665 153A opportunity of hearing Gopal S. Pandit Vs CIT Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0625-51 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 246 High Court held that there is no requirement of granting an opportunity of hearing to assessee
before approval Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 257 Taxman 50 by Joint Commissioner prior to giving approval as per section 153D to order of assessment or
(Karnataka)/[2018] 408 ITR 346 reassessment under section 153A
(Karnataka)
666 153(2A) limitation Param Transport (P.) Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1029-32 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 328 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that once Commissioner
PCIT 261 Taxman 346 (SC) exercised his revisionary powers then provisions of section 153(2A) would be applicable and,
limitation would be one year from date of order being passed by Commissioner in revision
petition
667 153B limitation after 263 K. V. Abdul Azeez Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-1218-7 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 320 (Kerala)/[2018] High Court held that since there is no limitation period provided for completion of an
order 253 Taxman 210 (Kerala)/[2018] 404 ITR assessment, on a remand made under section 263, such assessment would have to be
288 (Kerala) completed only within a reasonable period of time
668 153C not necessary that SSP Aviation Ltd Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2016 2012-LL-0329-2 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 214 (Delhi)/[2012] In view of provisions of section 153C, satisfaction that is required to be reached by Assessing
documents seized 207 Taxman 260 (Delhi)/[2012] 346 ITR Officer having jurisdiction over searched person is that valuable article or books of account or
must reflect 177 (Delhi)/[2012] 252 CTR 291 (Delhi) documents seized during search belong to a person other than searched person and, it is not
undisclosed income necessary that documents so seized must reflect any undisclosed income

669 153C satisfaction recorded CIT Vs Classic Enterprises Allahabad High 2013 2013-LL-0417-85 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 244 High Court upheld assessment where after search at business premises of assessee-firm and
Court (Allahabad)/[2013] 219 Taxman 237 its partner, books of account were handed over to concerned Assessing Officer, who after
(Allahabad)/[2013] 358 ITR 465 recording satisfaction issued notice under section 153C and completed assessment under
(Allahabad)/[2014] 268 CTR 364 section 153C/143(3)
(Allahabad)
670 153C notice for filing return Sarvesh Kumar Agarwal Vs Allahabad High 2011 2011-LL-1125-238 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 85 Even if assessing authority receiving satisfaction note had not found any thing adverse against
Union of India Court (Allahabad)/[2013] 216 Taxman 109 assessee on examination of account books, and further seized goods had already been
(Allahabad)(MAG.)/[2013] 353 ITR 26 released, notice under section 153C could still be issued to assessee to file return of income.
(Allahabad) Where bullion seized was released to assessee for having been validly entered in stock books,
Assessing Officer on receiving satisfaction note could still proceed under section 153A against
assessee to find out source of income
671 153C satisfaction proper Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani Vs Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-1010-6 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 311 (Gujarat) AO of searched person recorded that document found during search was copy of a ledger of
ACIT books of account of assessee company which evidenced certain cheque payments as well as
cash payments to a company by assessee. High Court held that there was prima facie material
to suggest that satisfaction as per section 153C was duly recorded and thus, notice issued to
file return to assessee was justified
672 153C satisfaction proper Kamleshbhai Dharamshibhai Gujarat High Court 2012 2012-LL-1224 [2013] 31 taxmann.com 50 (Gujarat)/[2013] High Court held that where assessee sold certain land to purchaser, documents, viz., sale
Patel Vs CIT 214 Taxman 558 (Gujarat)/[2013] 263 CTR deeds of said land and agreements executed between assessee and erstwhile tenants
362 (Gujarat) regarding their eviction, found during search upon purchaser, would be said to be belonging to
assessee for purpose of section 153C
673 153C satisfaction proper PCIT Vs Super Malls Pvt Ltd Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-1122-47 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 267 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that where Assessing Officer had issued satisfaction note under
393 ITR 557 (Delhi)/[2017] 291 CTR 142 section 153C after satisfying himself with contents of documents seized, Tribunal could not
(Delhi) declare it as invalid on hyper technical ground of incorrect terminology used in said note

674 153C same AO of the PCIT Vs Nau Nidh Overseas Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0203-127 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 665 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that satisfaction recorded by the Officer issuing notice u/s 153C is sufficient if
searched person and Pvt Ltd 394 ITR 753 (Delhi)/[2017] 293 CTR 567 the AO of the searched person and third party are the same
assessee (Delhi)
675 153C 127 centralisation of United Associates Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2017 2016-LL-1121-76 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 114 (Delhi) High Court held that where cases of searched assessee and group concerns were scattered
cases across different cities and states, all cases were to be centralised for taking a common view by
one Assessing Officer
676 153C same AO of the PCIT Vs Instronics Ltd Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0525-34 [2017]82taxmann.com357(Delhi) High Court upheld issuance of notice under section 153C where satisfaction note was recorded
searched person and (search in cases of Shri B.K. by Assessing Officer of searched person who also happened to be Assessing Officer of
assessee Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra assessee (other person) to effect that seized documents belonged to assessee
and Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt.
Ltd., associates of Thapar
Group of Companies on 20th
October, 2008)

677 153C belonged to Ganpati Fincap Services (P.) Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0525-33 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi)/[2017] (1) Assessing Officer of searched person recorded that documents seized during search
assessee Ltd. Vs CIT 395 ITR 692 (Delhi)/[2017] 298 CTR 174 belonged to assessee. High Court held that merely because he had not categorically stated that
(Search on AKG and his (Delhi) documents mentioned therein did not belong to searched person would not invalidate
associated Group) assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C in respect of assessee (2) High Court upheld
addition where proceeding under section 153C was initiated against assessee on basis of
seized documents which could not be said to be non-incriminating on bare perusal and despite
of being given several opportunities no submission on merits of case was made by assessee
 48

678 153C same AO of the PCIT Vs Sheetal International Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0710-5 2017-TIOL-1355-HC-DEL-IT Proceedings u/s 153C cannot be invalidated, merely because the AO of the searched who was
searched person and Pvt Ltd also that of the Assessee, did not record a separate satisfaction note
assessee
679 153D approval Gopal S. Pandit Vs CIT Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0628-43 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 233 High Court held that provisions of section 153D do not require any opportunity of hearing to be
Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 257 Taxman 300 given to assessee by authority who has to approve draft assessment order passed by
(Karnataka) Assessing Authority
680 154 already accepted by Indus Finance Corporation Ltd. Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0303-34 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 233 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that an issue which was
assessee Vs CIT 246 Taxman 222 (SC), 2017-TIOL-115-SC- decided by AO, accepted by assessee and hence abandoned in the course of appeal
IT proceedings, could not be a subject matter of rectification under the provisions of Section
154(1).
681 154 overlooking of CIT Vs. Steel Strips Ltd. P & H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0107-248 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 361 (Punjab & High Court held that overlooking of statutory provision is clearly a mistake apparent on record,
statutory provision Haryana)/[2011] 200 Taxman 368 (Punjab and on that basis, rectification under section 154 is clearly admissible
& Haryana)
682 154 deduction wrongly CIT Vs Parry Agro Industries Kerala High Court 2018 2018-LL-0523-108 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 462 (Kerala)/[2018] High Court held that here assessee's claim for deduction of various expenses in relation to
allowed Ltd. 256 Taxman 359 (Kerala) granite business was allowed, in view of fact that no such business was actually commenced in
relevant year and expenditure was incurred only on market survey conducted abroad, AO was
justified in passing rectification order under section 154 whereby expenditure claimed as
deduction was disallowed
683 158BC statement of partner Video Master Vs JCIT Supreme Court 2015 2015-LL-0916-17 66 taxmann.com 361 (SC)/[2015] 378 ITR Supreme Court held that where addition on account of undisclosed income was based on
of assessee-firm 374 (SC)/[2016] 282 CTR 221 statement of partner of assessee-firm, it could not be said that addition was based on no
evidence
684 158BC non-mentioning of Basant Kumar Patil Vs DCIT Supreme Court 2015 2015-LL-0108-5 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 16 (SC)/[2015] 230 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that non-mentioning of
block period Taxman 271 (SC) block period in notice issued under section 158BC would not invalidate notice nor would vitiate
proceedings as one without jurisdiction
685 158BC satisfaction on CIT Vs Panchajanyam Kerala High Court 2010 2010-LL-1115-1 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 584 (Kerala)/[2011] There is no mention in section 158BD that Assessing Officer, before transferring file to another
transfer of file Management Agencies and 333 ITR 281 (Kerala)/[2011] 239 CTR 424 officer having jurisdiction to assess person other than assessee proceeded under section 132
Services (Kerala) or 132A, has to record his satisfaction in writing
686 158BC less than 15 days in Surjeet Bahadur Khurania Vs P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-0922-55 [2016] 75 taxmann.com 229 (Punjab & High Court held that where notice issued under section 158BC inadvertently prescribes a
notice CIT Haryana)/[2016] 389 ITR 211 (Punjab & period of less than 15 days to file block return, said error does not by itself make notice void
Haryana) and, thus, block assessment proceedings carried out in pursuance of said notice could not be
set aside
687 158BC Extrapolation of on Harish Textile Engrs. Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2015 2015-LL-1030-28 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 66 (Bombay)/[2016] High Court held that where loose papers found during search indicated on money receipt by
money DCIT Court 236 Taxman 420 (Bombay)/[2015] 379 ITR assessee on sale of stenter machines for part of block period and assessee admitted to have
160 (Bombay) received on money during remaining block period also, certain amount was added to
assessee's income on basis of guess work as being on money received for remaining block
period
688 158BC 158BD on legal heir Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta Vs Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0321-16 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 23 (SC)/[2017] 247 Supreme Court held that invalid search warrant under section 132 issued in name of deceased
of deceased DIT Taxman 22 (SC)/[2017] 393 ITR 310 person cannot invalidate consequential block assessment under section 158BD on legal heir of
(SC)/[2017] 294 CTR 14 (SC) deceased, as legal heir had participated in proceedings of assessment initiated under section
158BC
689 158BC addition u/s 2(22(e) CIT Vs Mukundray K. Shah Supreme Court 2007 2007-LL-0410-1 [2007] 160 Taxman 276 (SC)/[2007] 290 A search conducted at assessee’s premises led to seizure of a diary, which contained
ITR 433 (SC)/[2007] 209 CTR 97 (SC) purchasing of nine per cent RBI relief bonds by assessee from funds received from two firms ‘B’
and ‘C’ in which he was a partner. Tribunal after examination of cash flow statement held that
two firms were used as conduits by assessee; that ‘A’ had made payments to ‘B’ and ‘C’ for
benefit of assessee, which enabled him to buy nine per cent RBI Relief Bonds and upheld
finding of Assessing Officer. Upheld addition u/s 2(22(e) of I.T.Act

690 158BC material collected in CIT Vs S. Ajit Kumar Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0502-40 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 294 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court held that any material or evidence found/collected in a survey which has been
survey 255 Taxman 286 (SC)/[2018] 404 ITR 526 simultaneously made at premises of a connected person can be utilized while making block
(SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 177 (SC) assessment in respect of an assessee under section 158BB, read with section 158BH

691 158BD less than 15 days in CIT Vs Joginder Singh P&H High Court 2012 2012-LL-1017-82 [2013] 40 taxmann.com 429 (Punjab & Proceedings in pursuance to notice issued under section 158BD giving less than 15 clear days
notice Haryana)/[2014] 223 Taxman 80 (Punjab & time to assessee to file return for block period would be void ab initio only in a case where
Haryana)(MAG) prejudice is shown to have been caused to assessee or where notice has not been served at all
to assessee
692 158BD satisfaction after CIT Vs Calcutta Knitwears Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-0312-51 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 446 (SC)/[2014] Supreme Court held that AO can record his satisfaction for issuing notice under section 158BD
completion of block 223 Taxman 115 (SC)(MAG)/[2014] 362 in case of person other than searched person even after completion of block assessment in
assessment ITR 673 (SC)/[2014] 267 CTR 105 (SC) case of searched person
693 158BD satisfaction after CIT Vs V.K. Narang (HUF) Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0108-1 [2016] 67 taxmann.com 183 (Delhi)/[2015] High Court held that where satisfaction note was recorded about five months after date of
completion of block 372 ITR 333 (Delhi) completion of assessment of searched person, there was no delay in issuance of notice under
assessment section 158BD to assessee
694 158BD satisfaction after CIT Vs Raghubir Singh Garg Delhi High Court 2015 2014-LL-0827-99 [2014] 51 taxmann.com 79 (Delhi)/[2015] AO can initiate proceedings under section 158BD in case of person other than searched person
completion of block 231 Taxman 673 (Delhi) even after completion of block assessment in case of searched person
assessment
 49

695 158BD satisfaction after Bipinchandra Chimanlal Doshi Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0714-23 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 298 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that in case of assessee,
completion of block Vs CIT 250 Taxman 93 (SC) other than searched person, block assessment order cannot be set aside on mere ground that
assessment satisfaction note was recorded subsequent to assessment framed in case of searched person

696 158BD recording of Tapan Kumar Dutta Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0424 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 367 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court held that AO must have to be satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to
satisfaction 255 Taxman 200 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 102 any person other than searched person under section 158BD, but no satisfaction to effect that
(SC) undisclosed income belongs to searched person is necessary before issuing notice under
section 158BC against searched person
697 158BFA admitted JRD Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0304-1 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 143 (Delhi)/[2015] High Court upheld penalty where assessee claimed a sum to have been derived from share
accommodation CIT 375 ITR 600 (Delhi)/[2015] 276 CTR 362 business but in course of search proceedings admitted that it included accommodation entries
entries (Delhi)
698 158BFA admitted JRD Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0220-2 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 184 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where assessee
accommodation CIT 246 Taxman 307 (SC) claimed a sum to have been derived from share business but in course of search proceedings
entries admitted under section 132(4) that it included accommodation entries, levy of penalty under
section 158BFA was justified
699 158BFA undisclosed Apex Metchem (P.) Ltd. Vs Rajasthan High 2014 2014-LL-0212-80 [2014] 46 taxmann.com 443 High Court upheld penalty u/s 158BFA where there was a categorical finding by all three
transactions out of ACIT Court (Rajasthan)/[2014] 269 CTR 354 authorities that assessee was involved in undisclosed transactions and all these transactions
books (Rajasthan) were out of books
700 158BFA assessee's claim Medical Land Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2014 2014-LL-0129-71 [2014] 45 taxmann.com 488 (Kerala)/[2014] High Court upheld penalty u/s 158BFA where undisclosed income is determined and
false 363 ITR 81 (Kerala) assessee's claim is found to be false
701 158BFA explanation of cash Harish Dargan Vs DCIT Delhi High Court 2009 2009-LL-0605-7 [2012] 20 taxmann.com 176 (Delhi)/[2011] 8 High Court upheld penalty u/s 158BFA where assessee's explanation regarding cash seized
seized not genuine ITR(T) 125 (Delhi) from assessee during search was found to be not genuine and addition was made in block
assessment
702 158BFA based on materials C Mohan Vs ACIT Madras High Court 2018 Not Available 2018-TIOL-2203-HC-MAD-IT When it is apparent that undisclosed income of the assessee was determined based on
available materials available at the time of search, which is also appreciated by both the appellate
authorities, there is no need for the High Court to interfere with the levy of interest and penalty
u/s 158BFA
703 192 Grant-in-aid received Union of India Vs Society of Madras High Court 2019 2019-LL-0320-39 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 333 High Court held that State Government as a payer of salary under Income-tax Act, is not bound
by Nuns Mary Immaculate (Tamil Nadu), (Madras)/[2019] 262 Taxman 496 by any religious tenets or provisions of Canon Law; hence salaries in form of Grant-in-aid
Madras (Madras)/[2019] 412 ITR 545 (Madras) received by Nuns, Sisters or Missionaries working as teachers in religious institutions, from
State Government, are taxable
704 194A time of deduction of Union Bank of India Vs Addl.CIT Allahabad High 2018 2018-LL-1120-1 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 231 In terms of section 194A(1), time of deduction of tax is undisputedly time at which interest is to
tax Court (Allahabad)/[2019] 260 Taxman 23 be credited to account of payee or when it is paid in cash/cheque or draft therefore, deduction
(Allahabad) of tax at source on interest income before close of financial year concerned as provided under
section 194A(4) would not absolve assessee bank from penalty for not deducting tax at source
at time of credit of said income in payee's account

705 194H applicable to Director, Prasar Bharati Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0403-4 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 11 (SC)/[2018] 255 Section 194H would be applicable to payments made by assessee, a government organization
'Doordarshan' Taxman 1 (SC)/[2018] 403 ITR 161 running TV channel called 'Doordarshan', to advertising agencies to secure more business as
(SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 9 (SC) these were in nature of 'commission' paid to agencies as defined in Explanation appended to
section 194H
706 194LA nature of land Union of India Vs Hari Singh Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0915-6 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 20 (SC)/[2018] 254 Supreme Court held that where Land Acquisition Collector while disbursing compensation had
acquired Taxman 126 (SC)/[2018] 302 CTR 458 (SC) deducted tax at source and deposited same with Income Tax Department, matter should have
been remitted to Assessing Officer to decide nature of land acquired and whether tax was
payable on compensation/enhanced compensation received on said land

707 197 projection of losses OPJ Trading (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0911-67 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 117 High Court held that where Assessing Officer on tentative re-working of assessee's accounts
questionable (Gujarat)/[2018] 259 Taxman 36 (Gujarat) formed a prima facie opinion and suggested collection of tax at reduced rate of 1 per cent, but
since projection of losses by assessee were found questionable, assessee's application for
reduced rate of TDS could not be granted
708 201 deduction of tax at CIT v. Meat Products of India Kerala High Court 1996 1996-LL-0329-1 [1997] 224 ITR 1 (Kerala)/[1996] 136 CTR A person responsible for deduction of tax at source in terms of section 195 of the Income-tax
source Ltd. 210 (Kerala) Act. 1961, is deemed to be in default if he does not either deduct the tax at source or having
deducted it does not pay it as required by section 200 within the time prescribed under rule 30
of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Section 201 further shows that the failure of such a person
makes him an assessee in default, although he would not, but for the default, be an assessee
in respect of the sum referred to in section 195 of the Act. It is his failure to discharge his
statutory obligation that visits him with the liability of "an assessee in default". This liability is
cast upon him under the aforesaid provisions not because of any order or notice of demand but
because of the operation of the statute itself. This is quite unlike a regular assessment under
which the tax becomes payable only upon service of a notice of demand under section 156 of
the Act. As soon as such failure occurs, the liability arises once and for all, there is no further
requirement of computation or assessment.
 50

709 201 failure to deduct tax CIT Vs Ramesh Enterprises Madras High Court 1998 1998-LL-1215 [1999] 105 Taxman 711 (Madras)/[2001] Assessee-firm failed to deduct tax from interest payments to its sister concerns on ground that
from interest 250 ITR 464 (Madras)/[2001] 169 CTR 513 one recipient had filed loss return and other was allowed refund of advance tax paid in excess.
payments (Madras) It was held that where a person paying interest is otherwise obliged to deduct tax at source
under section 194A, such person is not in any way concerned with extent of tax liability of
recipient except in cases where recipient furnishes requisite certificate or declaration to show
that his income was below taxable limit. Therefore, since in instant case, it was duty of
assessee paying interest to deduct tax at source but failed to do so, and no declaration or
certificate, as aforesaid, was filed, Tribunal was in error in cancelling interest charged under
section 201(1A)
710 201(1A) loss making company CIT Vs Chennai Metropolitan Madras High Court 2011 2011-LL-0920-2 [2011] 14 taxmann.com 73 (Madras)/[2011] High Court held that interest under section 201(1A) is leviable where recipient is a loss making
Water Supply & Sewerage 202 Taxman 454 (Madras)/[2012] 348 ITR company. In such case interest under section 201(1A) has to be calculated from date on which
Board 530 (Madras)/[2012] 246 CTR 402 (Madras) tax should have been deducted to date on which payee should have filed its return under
provisions of Act
711 201(1A) even if payee filed a CIT Vs Punjab Infrastructure P&H High Court 2016 2016-LL-1220-34 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 365 (Punjab & High Court held that where assessee-payer has failed to deduct tax at source under section
nil or loss return Dev. Board Haryana)/[2017] 245 Taxman 183 (Punjab 194C, it is liable to pay interest under section 201(1A) even if payee of such amounts has filed
& Haryana)/[2017] 394 ITR 195 (Punjab & a nil return or a return showing a loss
Haryana)
712 201 assessee to prove Nopany Marketing Co. (P.) Ltd. Calcutta High 2015 2015-LL-0209-20 [2015] 57 taxmann.com 186 AO has jurisdiction to demand amount of tax not deducted at source by an order passed under
payee has paid tax Vs CIT Court (Calcutta)/[2015] 231 Taxman 802 sub-sections (1) and (1A) of section 201. If assessee takes defence that payee has paid tax on
(Calcutta) money, it is for him to prove it. AO is not obliged to explore possible defences and to collect
evidence in support thereof
713 220 interim order of stay Google India (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT Karnataka High 2017 2017-LL-1122-14 [2017] 87 taxmann.com 290 High Court held that appeal being slated for final arguments before Appellate Tribunal, grant of
declined Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 252 Taxman 27 any interim order of stay was to be declined
(Karnataka)/[2018] 301 CTR 485
(Karnataka)
714 220(2A) financial hardship Video Master Vs CCIT Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0316-78 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 370 When assessee knowingly did not pay the taxes even after failing in arguments before the
Court (Bombay)/[2018] 256 Taxman 95 Tribunal and the High Court, it cannot still save itself from the claws of interest due on the tax
(Bombay)/[2018] 303 CTR 117 (Bombay), liability. Financial hardship pleaded by the assessee-firm for payment of tax dues is not to
2018-TIOL-495-HC-MUM-IT considered, since the partners were in possession of sufficient funds to meet its obligation

715 226(3) copy forwarded to Gecas Services India (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0711-6 [2017] 84 taxmann.com 21 (Delhi)/[2017] Section 226(3)(iii) only requires that a copy of notice issued under section 226(3)(i) to bank of
assessee Vs ITO 249 Taxman 615 (Delhi)/[2017] 396 ITR assessee should be forwarded to assessee and not that a copy of notice should be served on
305 (Delhi) assessee in advance or simultaneously
716 234A 234B, 234C mandatory CIT Vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala Supreme Court 2001 2001-LL-1018-6 119 Taxman 352 (SC)/[2001] 252 ITR 1 Payment of interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C is mandatory in nature
(SC)/[2001] 171 CTR 1
717 234A 234B, 234C mandatory Gaonkar Mines Vs Addl.CIT Karnataka High 2017 2017-LL-1114-8 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 92 High Court held that where Commissioner rejected assessee's application for waiver of interest
Court (Karnataka)/[2018] 252 Taxman 158 under sections 234A, 234B and 234C holding that in view of assessee's failure to deduct TDS
(Karnataka) while making contractual payments, disallowance of said payments and levy of interest was
automatic in terms of Instruction F No. 400/129/2002-IT (B), dated 26-6-2006, order so passed
did not require any interference
718 234B mandatory CIT Vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. P& H High Court 2004 2004-LL-0925 [2004] 141 Taxman 692 (Punjab & High Court held that where a default within meaning of sections 234B and 234C takes place,
& Engg. Co. Ltd. Haryana)/[2005] 279 ITR 123 (Punjab & levy of penal interest is automatic and there is no scope for applying principles of equity or rules
Haryana)/[2004] 192 CTR 385 (Punjab & of natural justice. Levy of tax or interest does not amount to adjustment in income or loss
Haryana) declared in return as envisaged under section 143(1)(a). Since advance tax is payable on
current income irrespective of whether same is computed under section 115JA or under other
provisions of Act, provisions of sections 234B and 234C would be attracted even in case where
a company is assessed on income computed under section 115JA

719 234B mandatory u/s JCIT Vs. Rolta India Ltd. Supreme Court 2011 2011-LL-0107-14 [2011] 9 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2011] 196 Supreme Court held that interest under sections 234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to
115JA/115JB Taxman 594 (SC)/[2011] 330 ITR 470 pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under section 115JA/115JB
(SC)/[2011] 237 CTR 329 (SC)
720 234B mandatory; non- CIT Vs. Insilco Ltd. Delhi High Court 2010 2010-LL-0122-6 [2010] 190 Taxman 306 (Delhi)/[2010] 321 Interest under section 234B is payable in case advance tax is not paid by stipulated dates and
mentioning in ITR 105 (Delhi)/[2010] 231 CTR 247 (Delhi) there is a default and for that purpose it would be immaterial whether such a default is
assessment order intentional or bona fide. High Court held that where in assessment order specific direction was
given to ‘charge interest’ and then, simultaneously, on same date in computation sheet interest
under section 234B was added, non-mentioning of that section in particular in assessment
order would not be of much consequence.
721 234B mandatory u/s 115JB SMR COTTON MILLS PVT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1008-94 2018-TIOL-2186-HC-MAD-IT All companies are liable for payment of advance tax u/s 115JB and hence, default in
LTD Vs CIT compliance of such payment will attract levy of interest u/ss 234B & 234C
722 234B 234C, mandatory u/s 115JA M M FORGINGS LTD VS DCIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0911-56 2018-TIOL-1987-HC-MAD-IT Whether interests under the provisions of Sections 234-B & 234-C are chargeable, on failure to
115JA pay advance tax in respect of MAT computed u/s 115JA
 51

723 234E defaults in filing Rajesh Kourani Vs Union of Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0620-4 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 137 High Court held that section 234E is a charging provision creating a charge for levying fee for
statements India (Gujarat)/[2017] 249 Taxman 402 certain defaults in filing statements, and fee prescribed under section 234E could be levied
(Gujarat)/[2017] 297 CTR 502 (Gujarat) even without a regulatory provision being found in section 200A for computation of fee

724 237 refund only excess of Dr. Thirupathy Reddy (HUF) Vs Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0828-43 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 430 High Court held that where assessment was nullified, only tax deposited by assessee in excess
tax on declared ACIT (Madras)/[2018] 258 Taxman 177 of what was declared by it on its own in return of income would be entitled to be refunded
income (Madras)/[2019] 410 ITR 186 (Madras)
725 245 220 intimation adequate Northern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0724 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 78 (SC)/[2017] 250 SLP against High Court ruling that even if Assessing Officer had passed stay order not to
ACIT Taxman 155 (SC) recover demand amount from assessee for certain period, said demand could, later on, be
adjusted against refund due for a previous year was to be dismissed; after adjustment of tax in
next year, balance amount if any should be refunded to assessee. SLP dismissed against High
Court ruling that where demand was raised against assessee and intimation was sent, mandate
of section 245 was satisfied by revenue before making adjustment of tax due for subsequent
years against refund payable to assessee for an earlier year

726 245 234B pending proceedings Devdip Malls Developers (P.) Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0719-28 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 47 (Gujarat)/[2018] High Court held that section 234B(2A) would apply to all pending proceedings pending as on 1-
Ltd. Vs Secretary 408 ITR 145 (Gujarat)/[2018] 301 CTR 85 6-2015
(Gujarat)
727 245D interest u/s 234A, CIT Vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala Supreme Court 2001 2001-LL-1018-6 [2001] 119 Taxman 352 (SC)/[2001] 252 Supreme Court held that Settlement Commission, while passing order under section 245D(4) or
234B and 234C ITR 1 (SC)/[2001] 171 CTR 1 (SC) (6), has no power to reduce or waive interest statutorily payable under sections 234A, 234B
and 234C
728 245D power to waive CIT Vs Sant Ram Mangat Ram Supreme Court 2004 2003-LL-0114-4 [2004] 134 Taxman 262 (SC)/[2003] 264 Supreme Court held that Settlement Commission does not have power to waive mandatory
interest Jewellers ITR 564 (SC)/[2004] 186 CTR 115 (SC) interest

729 245D revision of income Ajmera Housing Corpn. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2010 2010-LL-0820-5 [2010] 193 Taxman 193 (SC)/[2010] 326 Supreme Court held that in scheme of Chapter XIX-A, there is no stipulation for revision of
ITR 642 (SC)/[2010] 234 CTR 118 (SC) income disclosed in an application filed under section 245C(1) and, thus, determination of
income by Settlement Commission has necessarily to be with reference to income disclosed in
an application filed under said section in prescribed form. Settlement Commission was not
justified in imposing a token penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs taking into consideration multiple
disclosures made by assessee
730 245D JDIT's report Godwin Steels (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2012 2012-LL-0907-270 [2012] 25 taxmann.com 229 (SC) Supreme Court held that where Settlement Commission accepted on application on the basis of
JDIT's report, which is non-committal in nature; such order of Settlement Commission has to be
set aside
731 245D cross-examination Amrapali Fincap Ltd. Vs ITSC Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0811-165 [2016] 73 taxmann.com 97 (Gujarat) High Court held that where Settlement Commission denied assessee for cross-examination of
different witnesses, whose statements were recorded behind its back, and relying upon
statements of these witnesses to some extent rejected application for settlement, since
Settlement Commission had also taken into consideration other facts available on record, there
was no scope for interference
732 245C shifted stand Maheshbhai Shantilal Patel Vs Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-0313-73 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 460 High Court held that where Settlement Commission rejected assessee's application for
Secretary ITSC (Gujarat)/[2018] 405 ITR 270 (Gujarat) settlement on ground that he shifted his stand number of times either on quantum of
undisclosed income or its source, order so passed did not require any interference
733 245C clubbing of Bhatia Colonizers (P.) Ltd. Vs Rajasthan High 2018 2018-LL-1218-81 [2019] 101 taxmann.com 404 High Court held that for purpose of filing settlement application in case of company, clubbing of
shareholding DCIT Court (Rajasthan)/[2019] 261 Taxman 115 shareholding of shareholders to make collective shareholding of 20 per cent is not permissible
(Rajasthan) to determine their substantial interest in company so as to admit settlement application

734 245D no complexity of Dix Francis Vs ITSC Madras High Court 2016 2016-LL-0812-178 [2016] 73 taxmann.com 196 Requirement to file return under clause (a) of proviso to section 245C(1) is a pre-requisite to be
investigation (Madras)/[2017] 244 Taxman 126 entitled to file an application before Settlement Commission and it can not be reduced to an
(Madras)/[2017] 391 ITR 401 insignificant or a mere technical requirement. Whether pursuant to search proceedings,
(Madras)/[2016] 289 CTR 504 (Madras) assessee-firm and its partners having filed nil returns, approached Settlement Commission for
settlement of disputes, mere fact that there were several partners and multiple activities carried
out by assessee-firm would not result in complexity of investigation especially when revenue
had clearly set out as to what was nature and circumstances of case and, thus, impugned order
passed by Settlement Commission rejecting assessee's application did not require any
interference
735 245D unsubstantiated D. Shrinivas Vyas Vs ITO Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0817-2 [2016] 73 taxmann.com 268 (SC)/[2016] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where payer of
commission 242 Taxman 171 (SC) commission had admitted before Settlement Commission that unsubstantiated commission
payments was its own income and Settlement Commission had accepted such disclosure and
recomputed payer income, commission receipts would be separately assessable in hands of
assessee-payee, independent of said proceeding before Settlement Commission
 52

736 245D declaration of PCIT Vs Shree Nilkanth Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-0823-7 [2016] 73 taxmann.com 76 (Gujarat) The assessee applied for settlement of cases and declared a sum of Rs. 34 lakhs as
additional income Developers undisclosed income and later on it with permission of Settlement Commission declared
additional income of Rs. 56 lakhs and Settlement Commission accepted it on ground that it was
difficult to ascertain exact undisclosed income on basis of impounded documents. High Court
held that said ground was not a valid ground to accept declaration of additional income

737 245D passing of Shalibhadra Developers Vs Gujarat High Court 2016 2016-LL-1018-44 [2016] 74 taxmann.com 152 High Court held that for purpose of maintainability of a settlement application, a case would be
assessment order Secretary (Gujarat)/[2017] 245 Taxman 160 pending only as long as order of assessment is not passed and date of dispatch of service of
(Gujarat)/[2017] 291 CTR 87 (Gujarat) order on assessee would not be material for such purpose
738 245D different view Lal Bahadur Singh Vs Union of Patna High Court 2016 2016-LL-1123-144 [2016] 76 taxmann.com 239 (Patna)/[2017] High Court held that where Settlement Commission records a finding that there has been true
India 391 ITR 305 (Patna) and full disclosure of income at stage of section 245D(2C), since said matter remains alive till
stage section 245D(4), Settlement Commission can subsequently take a different view of
matter and proceed to reject application for settlement
739 245D full and true ABC Dubash Mining Vs ITSC Calcutta High 2017 2017-LL-0614-6 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 460 High Court held that for Settlement Commission to assume jurisdiction, it must return a finding
disclosure Court (Calcutta)/[2017] 396 ITR 427 (Calcutta) that assessee, before it, has made a full and true disclosure of its income and other matters
referred to in section 245C(1)
740 245D not assessee's Vishwa Nath Gupta Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-0515-5 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 382 (Delhi)/[2017] High Court held that where income declared by assessee for settlement did not belong to him
income 249 Taxman 27 (Delhi)/[2017] 395 ITR 165 but were unaccounted money collected by another entity, assessee's application for settlement
(Delhi) was to be rejected
741 245D capacity of broker Manojkumar Babulal Agrawala Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0613-8 [2017] 83 taxmann.com 139 (Gujarat) Settlement Commission was justified in rejecting application of assessee where assessee
Vs Secretary claimed that off market commodity transactions/hedging transactions found in seized
documents were entered into by him only in capacity of a broker and entire unaccounted
income from such transactions did not belong to him but failed to substantiate same,

742 245D unaccounted income Baldevbhai Bhikhabhai Patel Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0824-3 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 250 Settlement Commission was justified in denying application of assessee where before
of another person ITSC (Gujarat)/[2017] 250 Taxman 346 (Gujarat) Settlement Commission assessee offered an unaccounted income earned from sale of plot in
association with a person but that person denied entering into any such transaction, in fact, he
denied knowing assessee,
743 245D full and true Moin A Qureshi Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0828-26 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 566 (Delhi)/[2018] Settlement Commission was justified in rejecting application as being invalid where assessee
disclosure 257 Taxman 406 (Delhi) failed to make full and true disclosure with regard to property and bank accounts held abroad,

744 245D full and true Anbuchezhian Vs ITSC Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0119-100 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 71 (Madras)/[2018] Settlement Commission can reject application at very threshold where first and foremost
disclosure 253 Taxman 253 (Madras)/[2018] 402 ITR condition for an assessee to fulfil is to satisfy Commission that his disclosure was full and true
471 (Madras)/[2018] 301 CTR 136 (Madras) is not satisfied

745 245D rejected u/s 245D(4) PCIT Vs Boyance Infrastructure Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0220-67 [2018] 91 taxmann.com 437 (Karnataka) High Court held that petition against order accepting application under section 245C could not
(P.) Ltd Court be entertained if such application was finally rejected under section 245D(4) and separate writ
petition was filed against said order of rejection
746 245D nature of expenses Rashmi Infrastructure Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0120-1 [2017] 78 taxmann.com 85 (Bombay)/[2017] The assessee filed an application before Settlement Commission claiming certain expenditure
Developers Ltd. Vs ITSC Court 246 Taxman 342 (Bombay)/[2017] 396 ITR as 'speed money' for getting clearances from different authorities. Assessee failed to offer any
210 (Bombay) explanation regarding nature of said expenses. High Court held that Commission rightly
rejected assessee's application on ground that it had not come with clean hands

747 245D nature of expenses Rashmi Infrastructure Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0222-43 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 234 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where assessee filed
Developers Ltd. Vs ITSC 262 Taxman 1 (SC) an application before Settlement Commission claiming certain expenditure as 'speed money' for
getting clearances from different authorities, since assessee failed to offer any explanation
regarding nature of said expenses, Commission rightly rejected assessee's application on
ground that it had not come with clean hands

748 245F issue not disputed Mandhana Industries Ltd. Vs Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0204-61 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 301 High Court held that where assessee had not raised dispute regarding taxability of Government
PCIT Court (Bombay)/[2019] 262 Taxman 137 subsidy, received by it under a Government scheme, during entire settlement proceedings till
(Bombay) settlement order was passed, assessee could not urge Commissioner to examine such an
issue in exercise of revisional powers
749 245HA material produced to Vikas Shipping Corporation Vs Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0907-13 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 68 (Gujarat)/[2017] High Court held that where proceedings in case of assessee before Settlement Commission
be used by AO Union of India 251 Taxman 258 (Gujarat) abated due to non-compliance of provisions of section 245D(2D) and thereupon Commission
directed Assessing Officer to dispose of proceedings in accordance with provisions of sub-
sections (2), (3) and (4) of section 245HA, in such a situation, plea raised by assessee that
material produced before Commission should not be allowed to be used by revenue authorities,
was to be rejected
750 245I not perverse Arjun Singh Mohan Singh (HUF) Supreme Court 2014 2014-LL-1204-9 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 14 (SC)/[2015] 230 Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that even if there was an
Vs CIT Taxman 273 (SC) error of law or fact in calculating penalty by Settlement Commission, discretion exercised by it
requires no interference unless exercise of power made by Settlement Commission was
perverse requiring interference under article 226 of Constitution
 53

751 245K subsequent Abdul Rahim Vs ITSC Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0824-65 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 571 Bar provided under section 245K(2) for making subsequent application under section 245C is to
application (Madras)/[2018] 408 ITR 467 (Madras) be construed as a bar in respect of such assessment year, which is already subject matter in
earlier application, and not in respect of any future application in respect of any other
assessment year/years, being not subject matter of application already filed under section
245C, which was allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (1) of section 245D

752 250 previous orders Mathur Marketing (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1126-25 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 91 (Delhi)/[2019] High Court held that Commissioner (Appeals) in giving its findings could have considered
CIT 260 Taxman 9 (Delhi) previous orders (of revenue relating to past assessments), but they could not have been made
main bases for reversing Assessing Officer's order
753 253(4) Cross Objection CIT Vs Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Madras High Court 1982 1981-LL-1013 [1982] 11 Taxman 53 (Madras)/[1982] 136 High Court held that when the assessee has succeeded wholly before the AAC and the
ITR 315 (Madras)/[1982] 30 CTR 170 Tribunal, there was no scope for filing an appeal or cross-objections. The Tribunal in such
(Madras) cases should dismiss the cross-objections in limine as not being entertainable. The procedure
of filing cross-objections is not to be gone through merely for the purpose of putting forward
arguments in support of an order which is in favour of the cross-objector.

754 253(4) Cross Objection Vareli Textile Industries Vs CIT Gujarat High Court 2006 2006-LL-0206-6 [2006] 154 Taxman 33 (Gujarat)/[2006] 284 High Court upheld Tribunal rejection of assessee's application for condonation of delay in filing
ITR 238 (Gujarat)/[2006] 201 CTR 403 cross-objections on ground that same was filed after delay of more than a year. It was held that
(Gujarat) since assessee failed to show that it had a meritorious case which was not considered by
Tribunal on ground of limitation, Tribunal was justified in rejecting assessee's application

755 254 Clearance from COD Electronics Corporation of India Supreme Court 2011 2011-LL-0217 Civil Appeal No.1883 of 2011 dated Clearance from COD is no longer required for filing an appeal
Ltd. Vs. Union of India 17.02.2011
756 254 incorrect factual PCIT Vs Chartered Logistics Gujarat High Court 2017 2017-LL-0830-3 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 258 High Court held that when Tribunal's order was passed on clearly incorrect factual premise and
premise Ltd. (Gujarat)/[2017] 250 Taxman 385 (Gujarat) such factual premise being very foundation of order, such order must be set aside

757 254 condonation of delay Jubilant Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0110-29 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 126 (Delhi)/[2018] High Court held that delay was not to be condoned where assessee accepted reduced
DCIT 253 Taxman 284 (Delhi)/[2018] 400 ITR quantum of disallowance under section 14A granted by Commissioner (Appeals) but when
527 (Delhi) revenue filed appeal before Tribunal, assessee filed cross-objection after delay of over four
years completely denying liability under section 14A
758 254 judicial discretion not Ajay Kapoor Vs CIT J&K High Court 2018 2018-LL-0418-85 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 433 (Jammu & High Court held that where assessee sought rectification of Tribunal's order on ground that
error Kashmir)/[2018] 256 Taxman 20 (Jammu & while applying net rate of 10 per cent on gross receipt, Tribunal failed to take into consideration
Kashmir)/[2018] 302 CTR 431 (Jammu & binding order passed by co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal of effect that net profit rate of 5 per cent
Kashmir) was a reasonable rate, in view of fact that Tribunal had passed impugned order on basis of
order passed by co-ordinate Bench in another case relied upon by revenue, judicial discretion
exercised by Tribunal could not be construed to be an error on face of record which could be
rectified by resorting to section 254(2)
759 254 rectification for cross R. L. Traders Vs ITO Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1113-2 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 332 (SC)/[2019] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had upheld Tribunal's order
examination 260 Taxman 109 (SC) rejecting assessee's application for rectification of order on ground that while making addition
under section 68, assessee was not given an opportunity to cross examine person who
allegedly gave accommodation entries
760 254 principle of finality Five Star Marine Exports (P.) Delhi High Court 2019 2019-LL-0225-26 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 17 (Delhi)/[2019] High Court held that where Tribunal rejected assessee's cross-objection and assessee did not
Ltd. Vs DCIT 262 Taxman 31 (Delhi) appeal and when High Court decided revenue's appeal in Revenue's favour, assessee filed
rectification application before Tribunal regarding earlier cross-objection, same would be barred
by principle of finality
761 254(2) Rectification Amore Jewels Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT Bombay 2018 2018-LL-0803-109 2018-TIOL-1608-HC-MUM-IT If there is no discussion whatsoever by the Tribunal of the various case laws detailed in the
submissions filed by the assessee, the order is non-speaking and has to be recalled. The
Tribunal should take into account the material and case laws relied upon by the assessee
during the hearing
762 260A condonation of delay CIT Vs Pheroza Framroze & Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0310-75 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 261 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that High Court has inherent jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an
Co. 247 Taxman 100 (SC)/[2017] 392 ITR 626 appeal under section 260A
(SC)/[2017] 295 CTR 459 (SC)
763 260A reckoning of time of DIT(IT) Vs Hyundai Heavy Uttrakhand 2018 Interim Order [2018] 94 taxmann.com 208 Commencement of Time limit for appeals u/s 260A: The time limit for filing an appeal to the
120 days from receipt Industries Ltd (Uttarakhand)/[2018] 256 Taxman 147 High Court begins from the date of receipt of the order by the officer entitled to file the appeal.
by Jurisdictional CIT (Uttarakhand)/[2018] 407 ITR 129 The fact that the ITAT may have dispatched the order earlier is not relevant. The fact that the
(Uttarakhand)/[2018] 303 CTR 420 officer may be aware of the ITAT's order owing to collateral proceedings is also not relevant.
(Uttarakhand)
764 260A decide question on CIT Vs Goodwill Theatres (P.) Supreme Court 2018 2017-LL-1129-3 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2017] 299 High Court having noticed that appeal of revenue against decision of Narang Overseas (P.)
merits Ltd. CTR 457 (SC) Ltd. (supra) was dismissed by High Court for non-removal of defects in appeal, dismissed
appeal of revenue without going into merits of case. High Court had to decide question on
merits and, thus, impugned judgment and order passed by High Court was to be set aside and
matter was to be remanded back to High Court for deciding same on merits
 54

765 260A service of order DIT(IT) Vs Hyundai Heavy Uttarakhand High 2018 Interim Order [2018] 94 taxmann.com 208 High Court held that where there was no evidence on record that order passed by Tribunal was
Industries Co. Ltd. Court (Uttarakhand)/[2018] 256 Taxman 147 infact served on Director (International Taxation), which was mandatory requirement of section
(Uttarakhand)/[2018] 407 ITR 129 260A(2)(a), appeal filed by revenue could not be dismissed being barred by limitation
(Uttarakhand)/[2018] 303 CTR 420
(Uttarakhand)
766 260A issue not raised Ashish Estates & Properties (P.) Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0606-75 [2018] 96 taxmann.com 305 High Court held that issue not raised before Tribunal, could not be allowed to be urged before
before Tribunal Ltd. Vs CIT Court (Bombay)/[2018] 257 Taxman 585 High Court in appeal under section 260A, however, only an appeal on issue of jurisdiction
(Bombay) would be allowed
767 260A pendency of Spinacom India (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0813 [2018] 97 taxmann.com 516 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court held that time period for filing an appeal under section 260A does not get
application u/s 254(2) 258 Taxman 128 (SC) suspended on account of pendency of an application before Tribunal under section 254(2)

768 260A appeal not writ Smt. Rinku Chakraborthy Vs Karnataka High 2018 2018-LL-0924-47 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 188 (Karnataka) Tribunal dismissed time barred miscellaneous petition against its order upholding applicability of
DCIT Court Explanation 2 to section 2(22) holding that loans and advances made to directors of company
were taxable as 'deemed dividend', assessee. High Court held that, if dissatisfied, assessee
could have preferred an appeal under section 260A before High Court; writ jurisdiction against
dismissal order was not maintainable
769 260A condonation of delay CIT Vs Progressive Education Supreme Court 2019 2019-LL-0107-10 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 402 (SC)/[2019] Where High Court refused to condone delay in filing revenue's appeal and dismissed same
due to difference of Society 410 ITR 370 (SC) being barred by limitation, in view of fact that main cause of delay was difference of opinion
opinion between two officers and ultimately legal opinion was taken and, it was decided to file appeal, it
was opined that High Court should have heard appeal on merits and, therefore, SLP filed
against decision of High Court was to be granted
770 260A 261 Dismissal in limine PCIT Vs Yes Bank Ltd SC 2019 2019-LL-0315 CA 3148 of 2019 The High Court cannot hear the appeal bipartite without framing any substantial question of
law. It should either dismiss the appeal in limine on the ground that the appeal does not involve
any substantial question or hear the parties after framing a question
771 263 68 lack of proper enquiry Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta 2015 2015-LL-0121-1 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 283 High Court upheld order u/s 263 where Assessing Officer while accepting genuineness of loan
Central-I, Kolkata vs Maithan (Calcutta)/[2015] 231 Taxman 381 taken by assessee from various creditors, did not take into consideration creditworthiness of
International (Calcutta)/[2015] 375 ITR 123 lenders. It was held that mere examination of their bank statements or letter of confirmation
(Calcutta)/[2015] 277 CTR 65 (Calcutta) was not enough
772 263 68 non enquiry into Pragati Financial Management Calcutta 2017 2017-LL-0307-22 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 12 (Calcutta)/[2017] High Court held that even under unamended provision of section 68, an income-tax officer was
share premium as (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT-II 248 Taxman 349 (Calcutta)/[2017] 394 ITR not precluded from making an inquiry about true nature and source of sum found credited in
per amended proviso 27 (Calcutta)/[2017] 295 CTR 422 books even if same was credited as receipt of share application money
to 68 (Calcutta)

773 263 specific show cause CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0511 [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170 (SC)/[2016] Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on
notice 240 Taxman 221 (SC)/[2016] 384 ITR 200 which revision of assessment order is tentatively being proposed affecting initiation of exercise
(SC)/[2016] 286 CTR 113 (SC) in absence thereof or to require commissioner to confine himself to terms of notice and
foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact. Commissioner is free to
exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, provided an opportunity of hearing
is afforded to assessee to contest facts on basis of which he had exercised revisional
jurisdiction
774 263 154 order CIT Vs Ralson Industries Ltd. Supreme Court 2007 2007-LL-0104 [2007] 158 Taxman 160 (SC)/[2007] 288 Supreme Court held that initiation of a proceeding under section 263 cannot be held to have
ITR 322 (SC)/[2007] 207 CTR 201 (SC) become bad in law only because an order of rectification was passed under section 154

775 263 'order passed by the T.N. Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd. Supreme Court 2003 2003-LL-0116-10 [2003] 129 Taxman 69 (SC)/[2003] 260 ITR Supreme Court held that phrase 'order passed by the Income-tax Officer' in section 263 does
Income-tax Officer' Vs CIT 82 (SC)/[2003] 180 CTR 307 (SC) not exclude orders passed by ITO on directions of superior authority either under section 144A
or 144B
776 263 appeal before AAC EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2000 2000-LL-0225-1 [2000] 109 Taxman 151 (SC)/[2000] 242 Supreme Court held that commissioner could interfere, acting under section 263, with order of
ITR 659 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 137 (SC) ITO on point which was directly in appeal before AAC

777 263 without enquiry Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2000 2000-LL-0210-3 [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR Supreme Court held that where Assessing Officer had accepted entry in statement of account
CIT 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise
of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified
778 263 Meaning of 'record' Shree Manjunathesware Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-1202-7 [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 Word 'record' used in section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of examination by
Packing Products & Camphor (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) Commissioner but not as it stands at time of order passed by Assessing Officer. Material which
Works Vs CIT had already come on record though subsequently to making of assessment could be taken into
consideration by Commissioner. Commissioner was justified in invoking section 263 on basis of
valuation report submitted by DVO subsequent to assessment order.

779 263 conditions existed South India Steel Rolling Mills Supreme Court 1997 1997-LL-0225-8 [1997] 91 Taxman 196 (SC)/[1997] 224 ITR Supreme Court held that where conditions for withdrawal of development rebate as laid down in
Vs CIT 654 (SC)/[1997] 139 CTR 353 (SC) section 34(3)(b) existed, Commissioner could withdraw development rebate by invoking section
263
780 263 issues not touched CIT Vs Jaykumar B. Patil Supreme Court 1999 1996-LL-1213-2 [1999] 236 ITR 469 (SC)/[1999] 156 CTR Supreme Court held that commissioner has jurisdiction and powers to initiate proceedings
by CIT(Appeals) 476 (SC) under section 263 in respect of issues not touched by Commissioner (Appeals) in his appellate
order
 55

781 263 issue not considered CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. Supreme Court 1998 1996-LL-0123-5 [1998] 98 Taxman 457 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR Commissioner exercised his power under section 263 in respect of claims relating to three
50 (SC)/[1998] 147 CTR 474 (SC) items which were decided by ITO in favour of assessee and were not subject-matter of appeals
by assessee. Assessee contended that order of ITO merged with that of Commissioner
(Appeals) so as to exclude jurisdiction of Commissioner under section 263. SC held that in view
of amendment in section 263 by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect, powers of
Commissioner under section 263 would extend and would be deemed always to have extended
to three items because same had not been considered and decided in appeal filed by
assessee.
782 263 without proper Swarup Vegetable Products Vs Allahabad High 1990 1990-LL-0822-5 [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)/[1991] Assessee received certain amount by way of refund of excise duty and claimed that he had
enquiries CIT Court 187 ITR 412 (Allahabad)/[1990] 90 CTR placed this amount in suspense account as a large part of this amount was claimed by one G
113 (Allahabad) and a suit and also a writ petition filed by G in this regard were pending before Courts and,
thus, this amount did not constitute his income. ITO accepted assessee's claim without making
proper enquiries. Commissioner acting under section 263, set aside assessment order on
ground that it was clearly erroneous and also prejudicial to revenue inasmuch as claim of
assessee was accepted without proper enquiries and directed ITO to make fresh assessment
after making proper enquiries and recording a finding. Order upheld

783 263 without proper Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs CIT Allahabad High 2004 2004-LL-0423-3 [2004] 139 Taxman 369 (Allahabad)/[2004] When an assessment is done under section 143(3), it is expected that Assessing Officer will
enquiries Court 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad)/[2004] 191 CTR 25 make a detailed enquiry to find out correct income of assessee and not to take facts placed by
(Allahabad) assessee on their face value. Where Assessing Officer completed assessment proceedings
under section 143(3) and admitted that he could not make proper enquiries as assessment was
becoming time-barred, there was valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 by
Commissioner, and Tribunal, in such a situation, did not commit any error in law in confirming
order of Commissioner in setting aside assessment and directing Assessing Officer to make a
fresh assessment
784 263 271(1)(c) erroneous & CIT vs. Surendra Prasad 2005 2004-LL-0901-1 [2005] 142 Taxman 653 (Allahabad)/[2005] Non initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order amounts to error causing
prejudicial order Agrawal 275 ITR 113 (Allahabad)/[2005] 194 CTR prejudice to the interest of Revenue. Also see Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123
161 (Allahabad) ITR 874 (MP)

785 263 no proper CIT Vs Ashok Logani Dehi High Court 2011 2011-LL-0511-3 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 208 (Delhi)/[2011] It was found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing Officer to issue at hand and
consideration 202 Taxman 201 (Delhi)/[2012] 347 ITR 22 he left many loose ends, that too in a case where huge cash was found during search most of
(Delhi) which was surrendered by giving statement at time of search. High Court held that though
retracted and sought to be explained afterward, it was necessary for Assessing Officer to
properly adjudicate upon that issue and assessment order should have at least reflected that he
was satisfied with explanation disclosing source of cash found; and that there was a proper and
valid retraction
786 263 without requisite Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs Kolkata High Court 2016 2016-LL-0513-6 70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 High Court upheld order u/s 263 where assessee with a small amount of authorised share
enquiry PCIT Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 capital, raised a huge sum on account of premium and chose not to go in for increase of
(Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512 authorised share capital merely to avoid payment of statutory fees and Assessing Officer
passed assessment order without carrying out requisite enquiry into increase of share capital
including premium received by assessee
787 263 without requisite Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0109-16 [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court dismissed SLP of the assessee. High Court had held that where assessee with
enquiry PCIT 245 Taxman 127 (SC) a small amount of authorised share capital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise
of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining that this could be a case of money laundering
was justified
788 263 without examining CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0731-14 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) High Court upheld order u/s 263 where Assessing Officer allowed claim of deduction under
claim Court section 80HHC without examining said claim with reference to unabsorbed depreciation and
investment allowance as referred to in sections 32 and 32A respectively

789 263 no inquiry Virbhadra Singh (HUF) Vs PCIT HP High Court 2017 2017-LL-1005-1 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal High Court upheld order u/s 263 where no inquiry was conducted by Assessing officer in
Pradesh)/[2017] 251 Taxman 150 passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by assessee. Where assessee
(Himachal Pradesh)/[2018] 400 ITR 530 was fully aware that revenue had placed additional material in support of its case and also
(Himachal Pradesh)/[2017] 298 CTR 393 rebutted same, Tribunal having extensively dealt with issue of acceptance of additional
(Himachal Pradesh) evidence was well within its power in accepting additional evidence and confirming order
passed by Commissioner
790 263 no proper inquiry Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-1129 2017-TIOL-455-SC-IT Dismissed SLPs in cases where AO did not make any proper inquiry while making the
ITO assessment and accepting the explanation of the assessee(s) insofar as receipt of share
application money is concerned. On that basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after
setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry
thorough and detailed inquiry
 56

791 263 no proper inquiry Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. Calcutta High 2016 2017-LL-0410-48 2017-TIOL-2526-HC-KOL-IT Law laid down in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates
ITO Court 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the
ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the
assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned cannot be interfered with

792 263 non-consideration of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1108-7 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/[2017]Non-consideration of larger claim for Rs. 298.93 crores as depreciation and consideration of
claim PCIT 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) only a part of it being Rs. 6.45 crore by Assessing Officer, who did not go into issue with
respect to whole amount, was an error, that could be corrected under section 263.
Commissioner has power to consider all aspects which were subject matter of Assessing
Officer's order, if in his opinion, they were erroneous, despite assessee's appeal on that or
some other aspect
793 263 show cause notice Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs JCIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-1011-36 2018-TIOL-2284-HC-MAD-IT A show cause notice is not mandated to be issued by CIT prior to passing of his revisional
order u/s 263
794 263 failure to examine PCIT VS SHRI BRAHAM DEV Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0720-83 2018-TIOL-1547-HC-DEL-IT When the AO fails to examine certain aspects in the assessment order and the CIT invokes
GUPTA revisionary powers u/s 263, the Tribunal is not right in supplying reasons to AO's order. AO is
obliged to record some reasons when accepting or rejecting an argument made by the
assessee
795 263 failure to examine PCIT VS SHRI BRAHAM DEV Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1130-21 2018-TIOL-441-SC-IT SLP dismissed. High Court had held that when the AO fails to examine certain aspects in the
GUPTA assessment order and the CIT invokes revisionary powers u/s 263, the Tribunal is not right in
supplying reasons to AO's order. AO is obliged to record some reasons when accepting or
rejecting an argument made by the assessee
796 263 69C lack of complete Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0911-59 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 234 High Court held that where on basis of information received from Sales Tax authorities,
investigation Court (Bombay)/[2018] 259 Taxman 49 (Bombay) Assessing Officer found that assessee was beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and assessee
could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier,
Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio

797 264 notice not received Jindal Metal Co. Vs PCIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1031-41 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 183 (Delhi)/[2019] Commissioner was justified in dismissing said petition where assessee filed revision petition
260 Taxman 220 (Delhi) challenging additions made in reassessment proceedings on ground that notice of
reassessment and opportunity of hearing was not granted to it, in view of fact that in revision
petition assessee clearly admitted that not only were notices received, even reassessment
order was received but assessee did not care to appeal against it; and later on revision petition
was filed after expiry of period of limitation
798 269SS 271D for constructional CIT Vs Chandra Cement Ltd Rajasthan High 2016 2016-LL-0831-10 [2016] 74 taxmann.com 75 The assessee-company, engaged in setting up of cement plant, raised unsecured loan from
activities Court (Rajasthan)/[2017] 393 ITR 324 Managing Director in cash in excess of Rs. 20,000. High Court held that mere fact that said
(Rajasthan)/[2017] 291 CTR 581 amount was utilised for payment of constructional activities directly would not alter character of
(Rajasthan) deposits
799 269SS 271D through non-banking CIT Vs Sunil Sugar Co. Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0727-10 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 254 (Allahabad) Tribunal was not justified in deleting penalty where assessee had received loan/deposit through
mode Court non-banking mode, in contravention of section 269SS but could not provide reasonable cause
for such contravention
800 269SS 271D lack of formal Shivaji Ramchandra Pawar Bombay High 2018 2018-LL-0718-77 2018-TIOL-325-HC-MUM-IT Disclosure of the identity, source and genuineness of cash receipts for purposes of Section 68,
education (HUF) Vs ITO Court will by itself not permit a party to obtain loans in cash in breach of Section 269-SS. 'Lack of
formal education' cannot be claimed as "reasonable cause" for drawing presumption as to
ignorance of law
801 269SS 271D no distress situation Five Star Marine Exports (P.) Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0403-47 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 404 (Madras) High Court upheld penalty where Assessing Officer finding that assessee had accepted loans
Ltd. Vs DCIT by way of cash, in contravention of provisions of section 269SS, passed a penalty order under
section 271D, since assessee failed to establish its stand that aforesaid transactions related to
trade alone and, moreover, there was no distress situation which forced assessee to accept
loan in cash
802 271(1)(c) assessed income B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. Supreme Court 1998 1998-LL-0122-7 [2001] 116 Taxman 842 (SC)/[1999] 236 Supreme Court upheld penalty where difference between income assessed and income
more than 20% Co Vs CIT ITR 977 (SC)/[1999] 157 CTR 556 (SC) returned being more than 20 per cent, Explanation to section 271(1)(c) became applicable and
assessee having failed to discharge onus being cast on assessee by virtue of said Explanation

803 271(1)(c) civil liability Union of India v. Dharamendra Supreme Court 2007 2007-LL-0719 [2008] 166 Taxman 65 (SC)/[2007] 295 ITR Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is a civil liability for which wilful concealment is not an essential
Textile Processors 244 (SC)/[2007] 212 CTR 432 (SC) ingredient for attracting the civil liability as is the case in the matter of proceedings under
section 276C.
804 271(1)(c) voluntary disclosure MAK Data P. Ltd vs. CIT Supreme Court 2013 2013-LL-1030-60 [2013] 38 taxmann.com 448 (SC)/[2013] Under Explanation 1 to s. 271(1)(c), voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not absolve
of concealed income (Supreme Court) 358 ITR 593 (SC)/[2013] 263 CTR 1 (SC) assessee of s. 271(1)(c) penalty if the assessee fails to offer an explanation which is bona fide
and proves that all the material facts have been disclosed
805 271(1)(c) excessive deduction CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Kerala HC 1973 1972-LL-0817-3 [1973] 91 ITR 467 (Kerala) Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income
Co
806 271(1)(c) excessive deduction CIT vs India Seafood Kerala HC 1976 1976-LL-0409 [1976] 105 ITR 708 (Kerala) Claiming excessive deduction also amounts to concealment of income
 57

807 271(1)(c) no reason for non- VSB Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. P &H High Court 2013 2011-LL-0329-77 [2012] 21 taxmann.com 162 (Punjab & High Court upheld penalty where loss claimed by assessee on sale of shares was disallowed
compliance CIT Haryana)/[2013] 212 Taxman 59 (Punjab & under section 94(7) and assessee could not give any reason for non-compliance with section
Haryana)(MAG.) 94(7)
808 271(1)(c) changed complexion CIT Vs. Splender Construction Delhi High Court 2012 2011-LL-0114-96 [2012] 22 taxmann.com 407 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court upheld penalty where assessee in order to avoid payment of full tax, changed
of land 208 Taxman 302 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2013] 352 complexion of land from 'stock in trade' to 'investment' before selling it, assessee was guilty of
ITR 588 (Delhi) furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

809 271(1)(c) failure to substantiate Steel Infots Ltd vs. CIT M P High Court 2006 2006-LL-0328-3 [2008] 296 ITR 228 (Madhya Pradesh) If assessee despite being afforded an opportunity to prove transactions relied on by it for
transactions claiming benefits fails to substantiate those transactions, then a case for imposition of penalty is
made out
810 271(1)(c) bogus claim Kuttookaran Machine Tools vs. Kerala HC 2008 2008-LL-0318-2 [2009] 313 ITR 413 (Kerala) Levy of penalty was confirmed on the fact that the assessee had made bogus claim of
ACIT investment allowance and depreciation in respect of machinery which was not purchased,
installed or commissioned
811 271(1)(c) bogus claim CIT Vs Escorts Finance Ltd Delhi High Court 2009 2009-LL-0824-2 183 Taxman 453 (Delhi)/[2010] 328 ITR 44 If claim made in return of income appears to be ex facie bogus, it would be treated as a case of
(Delhi)/[2009] 226 CTR 105 concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified

812 271(1)(c) wrong adjustment of CIT Vs Moser Baer India Ltd. Supreme Court 2008 2008-LL-1114-3 184 Taxman 8 (SC)/[2009] 315 ITR 460 Penalty under section 271(1)(c) confirmed for wrong adjustment of Unabsorbed Depreciation
Unabsorbed (SC)/[2009] 222 CTR 213
Depreciation
813 271(1)(c) loss return CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd Supreme Court 2008 2008-LL-1103-4 184 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) because
(SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635 positive income of assessee was reduced to nil after allowing set-off of carried forward losses
of earlier years
814 271(1)(c) false claim CIT Vs Zoom Communication Delhi High Court 2010 2010-LL-0524 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any
(P.) Ltd. 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465 basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide,
Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty

815 271(1)(c) failing to cross- Roger Enterprises P. Ltd. v. CIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0204-2 [2016] 67 taxmann.com 344 (Delhi)/[2016] Adverse inference against assessee for failing to cross-examine a witness in quantum
examine 238 Taxman 434 (Delhi)/[2016] 382 ITR proceedings would equally apply to penalty proceedings and there was no necessity to again
639 (Delhi) offer assessee a further opportunity of cross-examining in penalty proceeding
816 271(1)(c) Explanation 4 CIT Vs Gold Coin Health Food Supreme Court 2008 2008-LL-0818-3 172 Taxman 386 (SC)/[2008] 304 ITR 308 Amendment made in Explanation 4 to section 271(1)(c)(iii) with effect from 1-4-2003 is
retrospective (P.) Ltd (SC)/[2008] 218 CTR 359 clarificatory and, therefore, will have retrospective effect. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be levied
in case of loss return
817 271(1)(c) evidence for loans K.P. Madhusudhanan Vs CIT Supreme Court 2001 2001-LL-0821-1 [2001] 118 Taxman 324 (SC)/[2001] Supreme Court held that where assessee was unable to furnish evidence for loans and it
(SC)/[2001] 169 CTR 489 (SC) offered amount of transaction as additional income, Assessing Officer was justified in imposing
penalty u/s271(1)(c) after finding the explanation to be unacceptable and applying Explanation
1(B) of the section
818 271(1)(c) loss return CIT Vs Shree Chowatia Tubes Supreme Court 2016 2017-LL-0406-17 [2017] 80 taxmann.com 388 (SC)/[2017] Supreme Court held that penalty order under section 271(1)(c) could not be cancelled on mere
(India) (P.) Ltd. 247 Taxman 147 (SC)/[2017] 297 CTR 15 ground that returned income and assessed income was a loss
(SC)
819 271(1)(c) allowances not Mohan Steels Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 2017 2017-LL-0331 2017-TIOL-159-SC-IT SLP dismissed after concurring with the views expressed by High Court that penalty for
bonafide concealment would become leviable if it was discovered that allowances claimed were not
bonafide in nature.
820 271(1)(c) allowances not Mohan Steels Ltd. Vs CIT Allahabad High 2017 2016-LL-1019-22 2016-TIOL-2735-HC-ALL-IT Where the positive income of assessee as computed by the AO turns out to be Nil, after
bonafide Court allowing set off of claim of unabsorbed depreciation and other allowances of earlier years, then
penalty for concealment will become leviable if it is discovered that allowances claimed were
not bonafide in nature
821 271(1)(c) voluntary disclosure Samson Maritime Ltd Vs CIT Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0309-23 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 671 Additions can be made on the ground that the assessee had debited foreign exchange loss
Court (Bombay)/[2017] 393 ITR 102 (Bombay), while determining non-tonnage income, when in fact no foreign exchange loss was involved in
2017-TIOL-519-HC-MUM-IT respect of its non-tonnage business. The disclosure made by assessee only after the AO
initiated proceedings u/s 142, cannot be said as 'voluntary disclosure' and hence would not
absolve the assessee from the rigours of penalty
822 271(1)(c) filing of paperbook Ashish Gandhi Builders And Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0112-61 2017-TIOL-137-HC-MUM-IT Mere filing of paperbook is not indicative of the fact that case laws referred therein has been
Developers Pvt Ltd Vs ITAT Court relied upon by the assessee and submissions have been made with regard to the same

823 271(1)(c) non inclusion of K K Motwani HUF Vs ACIT Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-1122-87 2016-TIOL-2910-HC-MUM-IT Detection of 'non inclusion of amount chargeable to tax' during reassessment, amounts to
amount chargeable to Court inaccurate filing, resulting in imposition of penalty. Detection of 'non inclusion of amount
tax chargeable to tax' during reassessment cannot be termed as a bonafide mistake, when no
effort was made to file revised return or brought mistake before AO was done by assessee

824 271(1)(c) voluntary disclosure Mohd Raza Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2016 2016-LL-0811-26 2016-TIOL-2026-HC-DEL-IT It is open to the AO to levy penalty in a case, where only upon the assessment being picked up
in scrutiny for further enquiry, the assessee has come out with the details and has surrendered
the income for taxation
 58

825 271(1)(c) failing to cross- Roger Enterprises Vs CIT Supreme Court 2016 2016-LL-0722-1 [2016] 72 taxmann.com 167 (SC) Supreme Court upheld High Court order which held that adverse inference against assessee
examine for failing to cross-examine a witness in quantum proceedings would equally apply to penalty
proceedings and there was no necessity to again offer assessee a further opportunity to cross-
examine in penalty proceedings
826 271(1)(c) donor not found Manoj Kumar Singhal Vs CIT P &H High Court 2015 2015-LL-0212-47 2015-TIOL-588-HC-P&H-IT If an assessee has clearly declared gifts received from an outsider in the accounts books, the
mere fact that the donor was not found at the given address, can be a ground to impose
penalty for concealment
827 271(1)(c) voluntary admission Grass Field Farms And Resorts Rajasthan High 2016 2016-LL-0601-142 [2017] 79 taxmann.com 426 High Court upheld penalty taking into consideration the material on record and voluminous
during survey P. Ltd. Vs DCIT Court (Rajasthan)/[2016] 388 ITR 395 documents found during the course of survey, the statements and offering of income during the
(Rajasthan)/[2016] 289 CTR 312 course of survey, could not be said to be voluntary as it was a clear cut admission.
(Rajasthan)
828 271(1)(c) approval Maharaj Garage & Co. Vs CIT Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0822-20 [2017] 85 taxmann.com 86 (Bombay)/[2018] High Court held that where opportunity of being heard was already given to assessee under
Court 400 ITR 292 (Bombay) section 274 before imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), no further opportunity of being
heard was to be given while obtaining previous approval of IAC
829 271(1)(c) income in Shanti Ramanand Sagar Vs CIT Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-1117 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 72 (Bombay)/[2018] High Court upheld penalty where assessee deferred declaration of income to subsequent year
subsequent year Court 402 ITR 245 (Bombay)/[2018] 300 CTR 132 and furnished inaccurate particulars of income for year under appeal, and, thus, avoided tax
(Bombay), 2017-TIOL-2429-HC-MUM-IT liability, merely because in subsequent year disclosure was made voluntarily

830 271(1)(c) Correct Limb New Holland Tractors (India) Delhi High Court 2014 2014-LL-0925-45 [2014] 49 taxmann.com 573 (Delhi)/[2015] At times and it is fairly common, the charge of concealment and 'furnishing of inaccurate
(P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 228 Taxman 66 (Delhi)/[2015] 275 CTR 291 particulars' may overlap [Para26]
(Delhi)
831 271(1)(c) Correct Limb is Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0423-59 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 250 It was held that the assessee has concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate
question of fact ACIT (Madras)/[2018] 403 ITR 407 (Madras) particulars of income. This issue can never be a question of law in the assessee's case, as it is
purely a question of fact. the assessee had at no earlier point of time raised the plea that on
account of a defect in the notice, they were put to prejudice. All violations will not result in
nullifying the orders passed by statutory authorities. even assuming that there was defect in the
notice, it had caused no prejudice to the assessee and the assessee clearly understood what
was the purport and import of notice issued under Section 274 r/w, Section 271 of the Act.
Where assessee claimed depreciation on non-existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c)
was to be levied

832 271(1)(c) Correct Limb is Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1026-56 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 152 (SC)/[2018] SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that where assessee claimed depreciation on non-
question of fact DCIT 259 Taxman 220 (SC) existent assets, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was to be levied.
833 271(1)(c) absence of cross- R L Traders Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2017 2017-LL-1207-27 2017-TIOL-2583-HC-DEL-IT Citing of past instance or lack of absence of cross-examination, cannot vitiate the initiation and
examination culmination of penalty proceedings
834 271(1)(c) absence of cross- R L Traders Vs ITO Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-1113-2 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 332 (SC)/[2019] SLP dismissed. High Court had held that citing of past instance or lack of absence of cross-
examination 260 Taxman 109 (SC) examination, cannot vitiate the initiation and culmination of penalty proceedings
835 271(1)(c) voluntary offer in PCIT Vs Dr. Vandana Gupta Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0220-21 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 229 (Delhi) High Court held that mere voluntary offer of a sum during survey in absence of any explanation
survey for source of income, invites concealment penalty when original return was silent about said
sum
836 271(1)(c) quantum proceedings PCIT VS M/s SHREE GOPAL Bombay High 2018 Interim Order 2018-TIOL-2413-HC-MUM-IT, 303 CTR When an appeal relating to quantum proceedings is admitted, it will ipso facto not vitiate the
admitted in HC HOUSING AND PLANTATION Court 428(Bom) penalty order. Mere admission of quantum appeal on substantial question of law, does not by
CORPORATION itself pre-suppos that penalty levied under such appeal is no more sustainable

837 271(1)(c) omission in return Khandelwal Steel And Tube Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0604-43 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 15 (Madras)/[2018] Explanation as to why there was an omission or wrong statement in original return must be due
Traders Vs ITO 256 Taxman 305 (Madras), 2018-TIOL- to bona fide inadvertence or bona fide mistake on part of assessee and even if assessee
1080-HC-MAD-IT agreed to addition with a condition that penalty could not be imposed, department is not
precluded from initiating penalty proceedings
838 271(1)(c) lease back Magna Credit & Financial Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0920-37 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 392 (Madras) High Court upheld penalty where assessee claimed depreciation on assets purchased from a
Services Ltd. Vs DCIT subsidiary company and further leased back to parent company, since sale and lease back
transaction was found to be bogus and assessee failed to substantiate with evidence its claim
of 100 per cent depreciation on leased assets,
839 271(1)(c) incorrect expenses Hamirpur District Co-operative Allahabad High 2019 2019-LL-0221-14 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 350 (Allahabad) High Court upheld penalty where Assessing Officer having noticed that assessee, a co-
debited Bank Ltd. Vs CIT Court operative bank, had debited amount of advance tax paid under head other expenditure and it
had also debited a certain amount in profit and loss account as loss from sale of or dealing with
non-banking business even though it was not an expense but an appropriation of profit
disallowed said amounts and included same in income of assessee

840 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 Sanjay Aggarwal Vs CIT P &H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0721-54 [2011] 15 taxmann.com 34 (Punjab & Assessee made disclosure during assessment proceeding under section 131(1) on 5-1-2006
Haryana)/[2012] 211 Taxman 178 (Punjab and offered to surrender amount attributable to him in investment in property. It was held that
& Haryana)(MAG.) no immunity could be claimed by assessee from levy of penalty in terms of Explanation 5 to
section 271(1)(c)
 59

841 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 CIT Vs Smt. Meera Devi Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-0823-45 [2012] 26 taxmann.com 132 (Delhi)/[2013] In compliance to notice u/s 153C, assessee disclosed substantially higher income adding other
212 Taxman 68 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2012] 253 sources, i.e. rent from house property and income from other sources. It was held that conduct
CTR 559 (Delhi) of assessees in filing returns without full particulars fell within mischief of section 271(1)(c) and
they would also not be entitled to claim benefit of exception, carved out in Explanation 5 to
section 271(1)(c)
842 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 Shourya Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2012 2012-LL-1212-79 [2013] 30 taxmann.com 10 (Delhi)/[2013] Escape route' from levy of penalty as provided by clause (2) to Explanation 5 to section
DCIT 213 Taxman 20 (Delhi)(MAG.)/[2013] 359 271(1)(c) is available, when assessee, in his statement not only offers or surrenders to tax
ITR 523 (Delhi)/[2013] 255 CTR 225 (Delhi) amount in question which is later assessed, but also complies with other conditions of having
filed return
843 271(1)(c) Explanation 5 CIT Vs S J Prasad Kerala HC 2008 2008-LL-0303-7 [2008] 220 CTR 169(KER.) Where a search was conducted in assessee’s premises and during search cash of Rs.
5,75,000 was seized by department and in course of search assessee gave a statement
declaring that amount belonged to another person but failed to prove same, there was
concealment of income by assessee by virtue of operation of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c)

844 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A CIT Vs Prasanna Dugar Calcutta High 2015 2015-LL-0107-2 [2015] 59 taxmann.com 99 (Calcutta)/[2015] High Court upheld penalty even where subsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a
Court 371 ITR 19 (Calcutta)(MAG.)/[2015] 279 sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return
CTR 86 (Calcutta)

845 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A Prasanna Dugar Vs CIT Supreme Court 2015 2015-LL-0501-1 [2016] 70 taxmann.com 175 (SC)/[2016] SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that even if assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum
240 Taxman 305 (SC)/[2015] 373 ITR 681 subsequent to search and offered said sum to tax, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was
(SC)/[2015] 279 CTR 536 (SC) justified
846 271(1) Expl 1(B) Explanation not CIT Vs Smt. Vasantha Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0112-75 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 74 (Kerala)/[2018] Commissioner (Appeals) set aside penalty order taking a view that there was no specific
mentioned Anirudhan 401 ITR 279 (Kerala)/[2018] 302 CTR 257 mention of proceedings taken under Explanation 1(B) to section 271(1), in view of fact that
(Kerala) when a notice was issued under section 271, Explanation also being included under provision,
assessee was sufficiently put to notice of entire provision as available under section 271(1)(c).
High Court held that impugned order setting aside levy of penalty was not sustainable

847 271AAA sum surrendered in Ritu Singal Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0312-43 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi)/[2018] Mere statement that the sum surrendered during the Search was undisclosed income but not
Search 403 ITR 97 (Delhi), 2018-TIOL-438-HC- disclosing the source of such income, cannot to be construed as the satisfaction of the
DEL-IT conditions u/s 271AAA
848 271AAB sum surrendered in Sandeep Chandak Vs PCIT Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0423 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 406 (SC)/[2018] Supreme Court held that where assessee in course of search admits undisclosed income and
Search 255 Taxman 367 (SC) manner in which such income has been derived, than provisions of section 271AAB would
automatically attract
849 271B initiation in Rama Medical Stores Vs CIT Allahabad High 2016 2016-LL-0926-87 2016-TIOL-2750-HC-ALL-IT For purpose of imposing penalty u/s 271B, its initiation in the course of assessment
assessment Court proceedings is not necessary within the meaning of Section 275(1)(c).
proceedings
850 271C no reasonable cause CIT Vs Muthoot Bankers Kerala High Court 2017 2017-LL-0830-14 [2017] 86 taxmann.com 34 (Kerala)/[2017] High Court upheld penalty u/s 271C on failure of assessee firm to establish reasonable cause
398 ITR 276 (Kerala) for not deducting tax at source on payments of interest made to sister concerns under section
194A
851 271C failure to deduct Union Bank of India, Agra Vs Allahabad High 2018 2018-LL-1120-1 [2018] 100 taxmann.com 231 High Court held that failure of assessee-bank to deduct TDS on interest income of the Agra
Addl.CIT TDS Court (Allahabad)/[2019] 260 Taxman 23 Development Authority will attract penalty. Deduction of TDS on interest income before close of
(Allahabad), 2018-TIOL-2454-HC-ALL-IT FY concerned as per Section 194A(4) will not absolve the bank from penalty for non-deduction
of TDS on such interest income
852 271D loan from financier Vasan Healthcare (P.) Ltd. Vs Madras High Court 2019 2019-LL-0205-53 [2019] 103 taxmann.com 26 Director of assessee-company obtained cash in excess of Rs. 20,000 as loan from a financier
Addl.CIT (Madras)/[2019] 261 Taxman 594 and same was deposited by him in cash in bank account of company. High Court held that
(Madras)/[2019] 411 ITR 499 (Madras) merely because director took cash loans from financier, and deposited it in current account of
assessee-company on very same day and assessee utilized it to pay salaries, rent and EMI
commitments could never be a ground to be taken as a mitigating factor to escape from rigour
of levy of penalty under section 271D
853 271D 271E initiation Grihalakshmi Vision Vs Kerala High Court 2015 2015-LL-0807-4 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 196 (Kerala)/[2015] Penalty proceedings under provisions of sections 271D and 271E are initiated not by Assessing
Addl.CIT 379 ITR 100 (Kerala) Officer but only with issuance of notice by Joint Commissioner
854 271E no business M Sougoumarin Vs ACIT Madras High Court 2018 2018-LL-0313-56 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 240 (Madras) The assessee had obtained and repaid loans in cash exceeding Rs. 20 thousand on regular
exigency basis. High Court upheld penalty in view of fact that loans and repayments had not been
accounted for in regular books of account and, moreover, no business exigency or urgency had
been established to follow a prolonged and persistent system of accepting and repaying loans
only in cash, penalty order passed under section 271D was to be confirmed

855 276CC independent Rakshit Jain Vs ACIT Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-1001-61 [2018] 99 taxmann.com 299 (Delhi), 2018- Assessment proceedings are independent from criminal prosecution & defence that certain
proceedings TIOL-2357-HC-DEL-IT evidence was not considered during assessment cannot be made grounds to vitiate the
prosecution. AO has the discretion to or not to penalize an assessee & whether non-imposition
of penalty cannot imply that default by assessee is not wilful
856 276CC failure to furnish Karan Luthra Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0914-119 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 455 (Delhi)/[2018] Criminal prosecution for failure to furnish return of income by virtue of section 276-CC can be
return 259 Taxman 209 (Delhi), 2018-TIOL-2187- superseded by merely filing return at later stage in response to notice issued by Trial Court
HC-DEL-IT
 60

857 276 277 wilful default Arun Arya Vs ITO J&K High Court 2018 2018-LL-0928-42 [2018] 98 taxmann.com 470 (Jammu & It is for the accused and not the Revenue to prove the absence of 'mens rea' and that too
Kashmir), 2018-TIOL-2113-HC-J&K-IT 'beyond reasonable doubt', to seek protection from penalty & prosecution u/ss 276(C) & 277.
Complaint of wilful default regards concealment of income, can be objected only during course
of trial and that too by way of factual defence
858 278B Principal officer Kingfisher Airlines Vs ITO Karnataka 2014 2014-LL-0118 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 201 Director needs to be issued notice u/s 2(35) deeming them as principle officer. If the director is
(Karnataka)/[2014] 265 ITR 240 involved in day to day operations of company, he can be treated as principle officer despite his
(Karnataka) denial.
859 279 276C(2) No bar on Kalluri Krishan Pushkar v Dy. AP 2015 2015-LL-0915-12 [2015] 63 taxmann.com 150 (Andhra The court held that, existence of other mode of recovery cannot act as a bar to the initiation of
Prosecution for non CIT Pradesh and Telangana)/[2016] 236 prosecution proceedings. In that particular case the prosecution was initiated u/s. 276C, for non-
payment of taxes Taxman 27 (Andhra Pradesh and payment of admitted tax and interest.
pending other modes Telangana)
of recovery.
860 279 No time limit for Friends Oil Mills & Ors. v. ITO Kerala 1977 1975-LL-0708-4 [1977] 106 ITR 571 (Kerala) In , dealing with S.277 of the Act, the Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that the bar of limitation
prosecution specified in section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would not apply to a
prosecution, under the Income-tax Act (also refer Nirmal Kapur v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 473
(P&H) (HC).
861 279 opportunity before CIT v. Velliappa Textiles Ltd., SC 2003 2003-LL-0916-4 263 ITR 550 (SC), 238 ITR 461(SC) The absence of an opportunity to be heard will not make the order of sanction void or illegal
sanction Banwari Lal Agarwal
862 279 276C(1) No bar on In P. Jayappan v. ITO SC 1984 1984-LL-0817-3 [1984] 19 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1984] 149 ITR Prosecution before completion of assessment or other proceedings: The assessment
Prosecution before 696 (SC)/[1984] 42 CTR 180 (SC) proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent proceedings. The assessment
completion of proceedings are conducted by the Income Tax Authorities and are civil proceedings in nature,
assessment whereas prosecution for offences committed are tried before a competent court. The provisions
of the Law of evidence that do not bind assessment proceedings, are to be strictly followed in
criminal proceedings. The court held that the two types of proceedings could run
simultaneously and that one need not wait for the other
863 279 voluntary appeal Vikram Singh Vs Union of India Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0123-22 [2018] 89 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi)/[2018] Where petitioner had voluntarily agreed and undertaken to pay to department compounding
withdrawl 253 Taxman 356 (Delhi)/[2018] 401 ITR charges and to withdraw his appeal, he is to be directed to be bound down by same. CBDT
307 (Delhi)/[2018] 301 CTR 439 (Delhi) Guidelines on Compounding of Offences, 2014, are exhaustive in nature and provide different
compounding charges for different offences and guidelines do not reflect any exercise of power
which is arbitrary or illegal
864 281 Void Transfer Shriya Bhupal Vs ACIT AP 2018 2018-LL-0502-89 [2018] 95 taxmann.com 230 (Andhra No need to approach court to declare transfer void u/s 281.HC rules that once a statute
Pradesh) declares a transfer to be void, the Court cannot impose a burden upon the Revenue to go to
the Civil Court and seek a declaration, remarks that “the statutory declaration contained in
Section 281(1) does not require to be baptised by a judicial declaration”; HC opines that the
Bombay HC in Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (which came to be upheld by SC supra),fell into
an error in comparing Sec. 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with Sec. 53 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (which only makes the transfer voidable); Further, with respect to SC ruling
holding that the TRO will have to file a suit under Rule 11(6), HC remarks that “This, in our
considered opinion and with great respect to the Supreme Court, is clearly contrary to the
scheme of Rule 11.”; Moreover, HC holds that the SC ruling was rendered in context of
unamended Sec. 281; HC cites Madras HC full bench ruling in Narra Gopalakrishniah wherein
Court made a distinction between a statutory provision that declares a transfer void and a
statutory prescription that makes a transfer merely voidable

865 281 Attachment of D.S.Senthilvel Madras 2018 2018-LL-0307-111 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 354 Sustains attachment on immovable property sold by tax-defaulter after serving demand notice:
property by TRO (Madras)/[2018] 256 Taxman 179 Madras HC refuses to lift attachment on immovable property purchased by petitioner from a tax
already sold by (Madras)/[2018] 405 ITR 202 (Madras), TS- defaulter, noting that demand notice under Rule 2 of second schedule (as mandated u/s. 281)
defaulter 166-HC-2018(MAD) was served upon tax defaulter prior to the execution of the sale transaction, remarks that “The
moment such a notice was served ..., by virtue of Rule 16(1) of the second schedule, he
became incompetent to deal with the property.”; Citing sec.11 of the Contract Act 1872, HC
holds that since defaulter-assessee was not competent to deal with the property, he could not
have passed any valid or legal title to the purchaser (petitioner); Rejecting petitioner’s stand
that the defaulter vendor ceased to have any interest in the property on the date when
attachment was made, HC highlights significant distinction between Rule 11(3)(a) (pertain to
immovable property) and Rule 11(3)(b) (pertaining to movable property), states that the date of
attachment is not relevant for the former; Rules that “any attachment of an immovable property
made under the second schedule would relate back to and take effect from the date on which
the notice to pay the arrears issued under II schedule was served on the defaulter.”; However,
quashes TRO's order to the extent it declared the transaction as null and void, holds that only a
civil court can declare a transaction as null and void, relies upon SC ruling in Gangadhar
Vishwanath Ranade
 61

866 292B 282 Service on CIT Vs Sudev Industries Delhi 2018-LL-0531-5 [2018] 94 taxmann.com 373 (Delhi)/[2018] Service of notice at the factory premises of the Assessee on the security guard was held to be
unauthorised person 256 Taxman 317 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR valid ,though “service” of notice u/s 147/148 is not a mere procedural requirement, but a
325 (Delhi) condition precedent for initiation of proceedings, the service upon a person who was not
authorized to receive notice does not render the proceedings null and void if the assessee
complied and entered appearance. [SLP by assessee dismissed]
867 292B company ceasing to Sky Light Hospitality LLP Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0202-91 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi)/[2018] Re-assessment notice issued in name of erstwhile private limited company despite company
exist ACIT 254 Taxman 109 (Delhi)/[2018] 405 ITR ceasing to exist as it had been converted into LLP would not invalidate re-assessment
296 (Delhi)/[2018] 303 CTR 131 (Delhi), proceedings as same was not a jurisdictional error, but an irregularity and procedural/technical
2018-TIOL-275-HC-DEL-IT lapse which could be cured under section 292B. Spice Infotainment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500 distinguished
868 292B company ceasing to Sky Light Hospitality LLP Vs Supreme Court 2018 2018-LL-0406-3 [2018] 92 taxmann.com 93 (SC)/[2018] 254 Supreme Court held that re-assessment notice issued in name of erstwhile company despite
exist ACIT Taxman 390 (SC)/[2018] 303 CTR 130 (SC) company ceasing to exist as it had been converted into LLP would not invalidate re-assessment
proceedings as wrong name mentioned in said notice was merely a clerical error which could
be corrected under section 292B
869 292BB 143(2) not served in Aravali Engineers (P.) Ltd. Vs P&H High Court 2010 2010-LL-1209-1 [2011] 11 taxmann.com 291 (Punjab & In proceedings before Tribunal, assessee raised a new plea that since notice under section
time CIT Haryana)/[2011] 200 Taxman 81 (Punjab & 143(2) was not served within stipulated time, assessment was barred by limitation. Tribunal
Haryana)(MAG.)/[2011] 335 ITR 508 refused to entertain plea raised by assessee. In view of provisions of section 292BB, question
(Punjab & Haryana)/[2011] 237 CTR 312 of validity of notice could not be allowed to be raised for first time in appeal. Therefore,
(Punjab & Haryana) impugned order of Tribunal refusing to entertain assessee's plea, was to be upheld

870 292BB service of 148 notice CIT Vs Panchvati Motors (P.) P&H High Court 2011 2011-LL-0503-3 [2011] 12 taxmann.com 111 (Punjab & Where assessee had filed return in response to notice under section 148 and no objection
Ltd. Haryana)/[2011] 200 Taxman 136 (Punjab regarding valid service of notice under section 148 was raised before Assessing Officer, it
& Haryana)(MAG.)/[2011] 243 CTR 189 would not be open to assessee to object that there was no valid service of notice under section
(Punjab & Haryana) 148
871 Rule 27 two issues CIT Vs Edward Keventer Delhi High Court 1979 1979-LL-1113-7 [1980] 123 ITR 200 (DELHI) Since in instance case subject-matter of appeal involved not only assessability of Rs. 9,28,000
(Successors) (P.) Ltd. but also allowability of Rs. 2,77,691 as a deduction, Tribunal was therefore, not justified in
precluding revenue from agitating disallowance of interest to extent of Rs. 2,77,691

872 Rule 27 appeal withdrawn CIT Vs Jamnadas Virji Shares & Bombay High 2012 2012-LL-0326-9 [2012] 21 taxmann.com 27 (Bombay)/[2013] Once appeal before Tribunal was withdrawn by assessee, in revenue's appeal, assessee could
Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. Court 212 Taxman 120 (Bombay)(MAG.)/[2013] support order of Commissioner (Appeals) only to that extent to which Commissioner (Appeals)
258 CTR 458 (Bombay) allowed assessee's claim; it could not assail order of Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds
decided against it
873 Rule 27 issues not Self Knitting Works Vs CIT P&H High Court 2014 2014-LL-0711-120 [2014] 51 taxmann.com 137 (Punjab & High Court held that where assessee's appeal was partly allowed by Commissioner (Appeals)
challenged Haryana)/[2014] 227 Taxman 253 (Punjab and in revenue's appeal before Tribunal, issues assailed by assessee were not challenged at
& Haryana)(MAG.) behest of revenue, assessee could not challenge issues against him by filing an application
under section 27 of ITAT rules
874 Rule 27 scope of the subject Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd Vs CIT Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0813-57 [2015] 64 taxmann.com 472 (Delhi), 2015- In an appeal preferred by the Assessee before the Tribunal, Revenue could not assail the
matter of appeal TIOL-1914-HC-DEL-IT finding returned by the CIT(A) in favour of the Assessee, limited to the issue decided by the
CIT(A) against the Assessee. It is not open to the Revenue to travel outside the scope of the
subject matter of the appeal to consider all questions of law where no investigation into facts
are necessary, under the guise of invoking rule 27
875 Rule 27 no plea CIT Vs Jindal Ployster Ltd Allahabad High 2017 2017-LL-0531-37 [2017] 82 taxmann.com 302 High Court held that Tribunal could return a finding on question of deduction permissible on
Court (Allahabad)/[2017] 248 Taxman 321 account of revenue expenditure even though no such plea was raised before it
(Allahabad)/[2017] 397 ITR 282 (Allahabad)

876 Rule 29 additional evidence Jawahar Lal Jain (HUF) Vs CIT P&H High Court 2014 2014-LL-0915-47 [2015] 59 taxmann.com 374 (Punjab & High Court held that where application for admission of additional evidence had been submitted
Haryana)/[2015] 370 ITR 712 (Punjab & six years after assessment, without any credible evidence or explanation for delay in submitting
Haryana)/[2015] 276 CTR 487 (Punjab & application, rejection of application was justified
Haryana)
877 Rule 46A additional evidence Rajkumar Srimal Vs CIT Calcutta 1976 1974-LL-1203-1 [1976] 102 ITR 525 (Calcutta) The purpose of rule 46A is to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the Income-tax
Officer .Also see Ganpatrai & Sons Ltd. 24 ITR 362 (Bom)
878 Rule 46A additional evidence Ramgopal Ganpatrai & Sons Bombay 1953 1953-LL-0306-1 24 ITR 362 (Bom) The purpose of rule 46A is to ensure that evidence is primarily led before the Income-tax
Ltd. Vs Commissioner Officer
879 Rule 46A procedure of Ranjit Kumar Choudhary Gujarat 2006 2006-LL-1109 Entire procedure of admission of Addl. Evidence u/r 46A explained. CIT(A) needs to pass order
admission of [2007] 162 Taxman 257 (Gauhati)/[2007] u/s 46A(2) on the satisfaction of conditions of 46A(1) before he can proceed to examine the
Addl.Evidence by 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati)/[2007] 209 CTR 21 same on merits
CIT(A) (Gauhati)
880 Rule 46A NO AO comments & CIT Vs Manish Build Well (P.) Delhi High Court 2011 2011-LL-1115-1 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi)/[2012] High Court held that where additional evidence was admitted and accepted as genuine at first
verification Ltd 204 Taxman 106 (Delhi)/[2011] 245 CTR appellate stage without Assessing Officer furnishing his comments and without verification,
397 (Delhi) requirement of rule 46A(3) were not satisfied
881 Rule 46A reasoned order ACIT Vs Mohar Singh Jodhpur High 2009 2009-LL-0325-6 [2011] 16 taxmann.com 37 (Jodhpur)/[2012] High Court held that where assessee filed an application under rule 46A, Commissioner
Court 49 SOT 129 (Jodhpur)(URO)/[2011] 137 (Appeals) must dispose of the application by way of a reasoned order and thereafter proceed to
TTJ 654 (Jodhpur) dispose of appeal on merits
 62

882 Rule 46A lack of inquiry not CIT Vs Jansampark Advertising Delhi High Court 2015 2015-LL-0311-4 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 286 (Delhi)/[2015] High Court held that in case of unaccounted entries found in books of account of assessee,
ground of deletion & Marketing (P.) Ltd 231 Taxman 384 (Delhi)/[2015] 375 ITR though it is obligation of Assessing Officer to conduct proper scrutiny of material, in event of
373 (Delhi) Assessing Officer failing to discharge his functions properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry
shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by
Assessing Officer on ground of lack of inquiry

883 Additional ground not raised C.K. Gopinathan Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2002 2002-LL-1017 [2003] 127 Taxman 416 (Kerala)/[2003] 260 Since assessee had not raised alternate contention that credits made in his books should be
Ground earlier ITR 213 (Kerala)/[2003] 179 CTR 415 treated as income of earlier years before Assessing Officer or first appellate authority, he
(Kerala) should not be allowed to raise such contention before second appellate authority

884 Additional what prevented from Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0418-9 2017-TIOL-785-HC-MUM-IT An additional ground for claiming deduction u/s 80IA cannot be allowed by the Tribunal, when
Ground raising earlier Addl.CIT Court no claim was made before the original authority and there is nothing on record to indicate as to
what prevented the assessee from raising such a claim before lower authorities

885 Additional no claim before AO Addl. CIT Vs Gurjargravures Supreme Court 1978 1977-LL-1108-2 [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) The High Court was not justified in holding that if an item of income was taxed, the question of
Ground (P.) Ltd its non-taxability should be taken to have been considered by the ITO though no such claim
had been made before him by the assessee
886 Condonation of no explanation M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd Bombay High 2016 2016-LL-1208-94 2016-TIOL-3158-HC-MUM-IT When there is no explanation given for delay in filing of appeal, such delay in filing cannot be
Delay Vs DCIT Court condoned. There was no explanation given for delay in filing the appeal of almost over three
months from the discovery / knowledge of the fact that appeals had remained to be filed. No
reasons for this delay was even attempted to be explained.
887 Condonation of no explanation M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd Supreme Court 2017 2018-LL-0711-33 2017-TIOL-185-SC-IT Dimissed SLP of the assessee by upholding the decision of High Court that when there is no
Delay Vs DCIT explanation given for delay in filing of appeal, such delay in filing cannot be condoned

888 Condonation of no sufficient cause Shri Subodh Parkash Vs JCIT Bombay High 2017 2017-LL-0524-120 [2017] 88 taxmann.com 601 (Punjab & High Court held that delay cannot be condoned when the explanation submitted by the
Delay Court Haryana)/[2017] 397 ITR 384 (Punjab & Assessee does not satisfy the test of 'sufficient cause' as required u/s 5 of the Limitation Act,
Haryana), 2017-TIOL-2249-HC-P&H-IT 1963
889 Condonation of cross objection after Jubilant Securities (P.) Ltd. Vs Delhi High Court 2018 2018-LL-0110-29 [2018] 90 taxmann.com 126 (Delhi)/[2018] High Court held that delay cannot be condoned where assessee accepted reduced quantum of
Delay four years DCIT 253 Taxman 284 (Delhi)/[2018] 400 ITR disallowance under section 14A granted by Commissioner (Appeals) but when revenue filed
527 (Delhi) appeal before Tribunal, assessee filed cross-objection after delay of over four years completely
denying liability under section 14A
890 Condonation of ex-employee left it in Vama Apparels (India) (P.) Ltd. Bombay High 2019 2019-LL-0111-67 [2019] 102 taxmann.com 398 High Court held that where assessee filed appeal before High Court with a delay of 507 days
Delay drawer Vs ACIT Court (Bombay)/[2019] 261 Taxman 496 and sought condonation of delay stating that ex-employee of assessee who received order of
(Bombay) Tribunal put it in his drawer and left company without informing anybody about such orders and
it was only about a month before filing of instant appeal when his substitute new employee
found papers from drawer, there was no sufficient explanation for delay

891 Ex Parte Order non-cooperative PCIT Vs Ashokji Chanduji Gujarat High Court 2018 2018-LL-1009-27 2018-TIOL-2244-HC-AHM-IT When the assessee himself is non-cooperative right from the assessment till appellate
assessee Thakor proceedings, then there is no infirmity in proceeding being decided ex parte
892 Stay of beyond six months ASIAN RESURFACING OF Supreme Court 2018 Other Acts CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1375-1376 OF We consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of
Demand only in exceptional ROAD AGENCY PVT LTD. & 2013 a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from
cases ANR VS CBI today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where
stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order
unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the
case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having
the trial finalized.
893 General Preponderance of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT Supreme Court 1995 1995-LL-0328 [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/[1995] 214 ITR If the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion
probablity 801 (SC)/[1995] 125 CTR 124 (SC) of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory, there is prima facie evidence against the assessee,
vis., the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut the same, the said evidence being unrebutted
can be used against him by holding that it is a receipt of an income nature. While considering
the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably

894 General Lifting of Corporate Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT Supreme Court 1985 1985-LL-0417-6 [1985] 22 Taxman 11 (SC)/[1985] 154 ITR It is not open to every one to so arrange his affairs as to reduce burden of taxation to minimum
Veil 148 (SC)/[1985] 47 CTR 126 (SC) and such a process constitutes tax evasion
895 General advantage of own Mrutunjay Pani & Another vs. SC Other Acts AIR 1961 SC 1353 , (1996) 4 SCC 127 “Nullus commondum capere protest de injuria sua propria” is a maxim of law, recognized and
mistakes Narmada Bala Sasmal & established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is
impermissible Another, Union of India & Ors. based on elementary principles, is fully recognized in Courts of law and of equity. The court
vs. Major General Madan Lal held that where an obligation is cast on a party and he commits a breach of such obligation, he
Yadav (Retd.), cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation
 63

896 General perversity gives rise Vijay Kumar Talwar SC 2010 2010-LL-1206-2 [2010] 8 taxmann.com 264 (SC)/[2011] 196 The court observed in para 21 as under: A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question
to SQL Taxman 136 (SC)/[2011] 330 ITR 1 of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving at the
(SC)/[2010] 236 CTR 454 (SC) said finding, relevant admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible
evidence has been taken into consideration or legal principles have not been applied in
appreciating the evidence, or when the evidence has been misread

897 Writ Alternate remedy Hind Charitable Trust Vs PCIT Allahabad 2018 2018-LL-0411-89 [2018] 93 taxmann.com 483 (Allahabad) writ petition was not maintainable against show-cause notice issued under section 12AA(3) for
Central Lucknow cancellation of registration of assessee-trust, as assessee still had an opportunity to raise all
pleas before Commissioner, who would necessarily consider same and pass a final order.

898 Writ Alternate remedy Indo Asahi Glass Company Ltd. SC 2002 2001-LL-0911-3 [2002] 122 Taxman 123 (SC)/[2002] 254 When the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy available to it the writ petition is not
Vs ITO ITR 210 (SC)/[2002] 174 CTR 113 (SC) warranted.

899 Writ Alternate remedy CIT Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal. SC 2013 2013-LL-0808-93 [2013] 36 taxmann.com 36 (SC)/[2013] 217 When the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy available to it the writ petition is not
Taxman 143 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 357 warranted.
(SC)/[2013] 261 CTR 113 (SC)
900 Writ Alternate remedy CIT Vs Vijay Bhai N Chandrani SC 2013 2013-LL-0718-33 [2013] 35 taxmann.com 580 (SC)/[2013] When the petitioner has an adequate alternative remedy available to it the writ petition is not
217 Taxman 138 (SC)/[2013] 357 ITR 713 warranted.
(SC)/[2013] 261 CTR 225 (SC)