This document is a letter listing recent legal landmarks from various courts: 1. The Gujarat High Court ruled that if deduction was allowed under section 80-IB for preceding years, the AO cannot reopen assessment on the same grounds for succeeding years. 2. The Mumbai ITAT ruled that since business transactions and investments came from the same funds and accounts, profit from share transactions represented business income. 3. The Delhi High Court ruled that an addition should be deleted if the assessee subsequently obtained a certificate from the bank against the addition.

1. VOLUME NO.: LLAT/743 OF 2016-17 DATE: 6 May 2014
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dear Client,
We have pleasure in listing below some of the recent legal landmarks.
SrNo Authority Section/Rules RATIO(S)
Citation /Subject CASE(NAME OF ASSESSEE)
1.1 GUJ HC 80-IB 147 ITA
Where deduction was allowed for preceding assessment years AO could not reopen
assessment on merit on same ground in succeeding assessment year.
1.2 41TM025 Reassessment
Kalpatru Sthapatya (P.) Ltd
2.1 MUM ITAT 28(i) 45 ITA
Since A was maintaining same set of books of account for both its business
transactions and purported investment activity out of same common pool of funds
profit from share transactions represented only business transactions.
2.2 41TM026 Business income
Anand M. Fatehpuria HUF
3.1 DEL HC 69 158BB ITA
Addition on account of difference between numbers in panchanama and numbers
appearing in supporting documents was to be deleted in view of fact that A
subsequently obtained a certificate from concerned bank against said addition.
3.2 41TM027 Search Assessment
T.C. Sood
4.1 BOM HC 22 28(i) 147 ITA
Reassessment was valid where AOs opinion that income had escaped assessment
could not be regarded as a mere subjective satisfaction.
4.2 41TM028 Reassessment
Crimson Properties (P.) Ltd.
5.1 MAD HC 253 ITA
TRIB was not justified in ordering remand when all materials necessary for deciding
issues were there before TRIB.
5.2 41TM029 Appeals
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co
6.1 DEL HC 271(1)(c) 28(i) ITA
Where interest earned was not shown in profit and loss account following AS-I but
disclosed in audit report penalty would not be justified.
6.2 41TM030 Penalty
Housing and Urban Development Corpn. Ltd