This document provides a summary of recent legal landmarks from various High Courts in India. It includes 6 cases with details of the section/rules and ratios involved. The first case from the Punjab and Haryana High Court determined that the timing of funds introduced to a company is irrelevant under section 68. The second from the Allahabad High Court upheld a reassessment notice issued within 6 years as permitted by section 149(1)(b). The third from the Gujarat High Court removed an addition made in a regular assessment that had already been deleted in appellate proceedings for the block assessment.

1. VOLUME NO.: LLAT/748 OF 2016-17 DATE: 12 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 P&H HC 68 ITA
Whether amount was introduced prior to commencement of business of company or
afterwards is of no significance in as much as aforesaid provision nowhere
envisages any such eventuality.
1.2 41TM143 Income from CC
Sri Baba Rupadas Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd
2.1 ALLBD HC 149 148 ITA
Notice had been issued within a period of six years from end of relevant assessment
years in terms of provisions of clause (b) of section 149(1) notice so issued could not
be quashed on ground of limitation.
2.2 41TM145 Reassessment
Manglik Enterprises
3.1 GUJ HC 69B ITA
Where addition made in block assessment deleted subsequently in appellate
proceedings impugned addition made in regular assessment was also not
sustainable.
3.2 41TM147 Undisclosed Investments
Govindbhai N. Patel
4.1 DEL HC 48 ITA
DVOs Valuation report have an element of discretion therefore sale consideration
received on transfer could be computed at figure shown in books of account of
builder.
4.2 41TM148 Capital gains
National Co-operative Consumers Federation of India Ltd
5.1 GUJ HC 68 ITA
Addition could not be made on account of advance refunded on cancellation of sale
deal as AO couldnt prove its non-payment.
5.2 41TM152 Income from CC
Hitesh Somani
6.1 GUJ HC 254 ITA
Rectification was allowed where TRIB erroneously recorded AOs concession to
effect that certain grounds were not pressed and rendered no decision on merits on
such grounds it constituted a mistake apparent from record.
6.2 41TM159 Appeallable Orders
Ramjibhai K. Shiyani