The Income Tax Case Law Digest brings together important Indian income tax judgments, ITAT rulings and High Court decisions in a concise and practical format. Each case law digest highlights the key facts, legal issue, relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, judicial reasoning and the final ruling, helping readers quickly understand significant developments in income tax law and tax litigation.
Explore important income tax case laws, tax judgments, tribunal rulings, penalty and prosecution decisions, tax exemptions, deductions, assessments, reassessment, capital gains, business income and other direct tax issues. The digest is designed for Chartered Accountants, tax professionals, finance professionals, businesses and taxpayers looking for clear and accessible summaries of significant Indian tax rulings and their practical implications.
Can an Indian power of attorney make a foreign company a tax resident in India? The Delhi High Court examines the issue in SFDC Ireland Ltd. v. CIT.
Can the TDS limitation period restart for every quarterly statement? The Bombay High Court explains how Section 201(3) applies to each TDS statement.
Can the Income Tax Department inspect seized jewellery kept in sealed packages without first sharing the reasons? The Calcutta High Court answers this under Rule 112(13).
Can a court force the Income Tax Department to disclose PAN details in a cash loan recovery suit? The Madras High Court held that while the court can inform the Income Tax Department about suspected cash transactions, it cannot compel PAN disclosure through the suit.
Can prosecution survive after a compounding fee is paid? In Jyotsana Investments Co. Ltd. v. R.K. De, the Calcutta High Court examined a prosecution delayed for nearly 40 years and held that continuing the criminal proceedings after compounding, in the circumstances of the case, violated Article 21. The ruling highlights the importance of delay, compounding and the right to a fair and timely legal process.
Shiv Kumar Jaiswal v. State of U.P. examines whether criminal prosecution can continue when the underlying penalty order has already been deleted. The Allahabad High Court considered the effect of the deletion of the penalty on the foundation of the prosecution proceedings and addressed whether such prosecution could survive once the corresponding penalty no longer remained in force.
Vidya Sagar Sharma v. UOI examines whether a taxpayer could seek relief under the Vivad Se Vishwas 2024 Scheme after a DTVSV 2020 declaration became void. The J&K High Court considered the effect of the statutory revival of the pending revision proceedings and held that the assessee could pursue the DTVSV 2024 route.
