This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws
S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – Notice issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year – Principal Chief Commissioner – Approval obtained from Principal Commissioner instead of Principal Chief Commissioner – Reassessment notice and consequential order is quashed and set aside . [S. 56(2)(vii)(b), 144B, 147, 148 ,151(ii) ]
Ramlal G Suthar v. ITO ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline.org
S. 148: Reassessment –Notice – – Non existing company -Merger of companies – Notice served on non -– existing company or entity despite the respondents’ knowledge of its non-existence – Notice is quashed and set aside . [S. 2(31), 292B, 148A, 151, 292B, Art. 226 ]
City Corporation Limited v. ACIT (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Grant of approval without application of mind -Benefits of giving opportunity of hearing after issue of initial notice under Section 148A(b)-Order passed under Section 148A(d) without giving requested opportunity of hearing-Approval by Principal Commissioner without application of mind-Order and consequent notice is set aside by High Court-SLP of Revenue is dismissed as the reasons assigned for seeking condonation of delay of 201 days in filing the SLP are neither satisfactory nor sufficient in law to condone the same. [S. 147, 148, 148(A)(b) 148A(d), 149(1((b), 151, Art. 136]
ITO v. Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia (2024) 469 ITR 315 / 168 taxmann.com 41/ 302 Taxman 89 (SC) Editorial: Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 168 taxmann.com 40 /469 ITR 252 (Bom)(HC)
S. 147: Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Reopening on same set of facts invalid-The reasons assigned for explaining the delay of 489 days in filing SLP are neither satisfactory or sufficient in law for condonation-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 68, Art. 136]
ACIT v. AIM Fincon (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 169 (SC) Editorial : AIM Fincon (P) Ltd v.ACIT(2024) 166 taxmann.com 680 (Guj)(HC)
S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice –Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-5(3), Kolkata issued a notice under section 143(2)-Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-9(2), Kolkata completed assessment without issuing notice under section 143(2) –Additional ground-Order is bad in law –Tax effect is less than 1, 50,0000-SLP of revenue is dismissed as failure to explain the delay of 477 days. [S. 143(3), Art. 136]
PCIT v. Weedo Ventures (P.) Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 624 (SC) Editorial : PCIT v. Weedo Ventures (P.) Ltd. (2024)167 taxmann.com 614(Cal)(HC)
S. 132: Search and Seizure-Warrant issued-Search premises left blank-Witnesses from different place-Panchnama-Search invalid-Documents to conduct search fabricated-High Court has directed the Department to refund cash of Rs.5.00 crores to assessee with interest at 12% p.a. along with costs of Rs.20,000-SLP of Revenue is dismissed as infructuous as subsequent assessments have been made.[S.132A, 132B, Art. 14,136, 300A]
PDIT (Inv) v. Vipul Kumar Patel (2024) 301 Taxman 408 (SC) Editorial: Vipul Kumar Patel v. UOI [2024] 167 taxmann.com 140 (Telangana) (HC)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Deposits in foreign bank account-Deposit belonged to the nephew and not assessee-Sufficient evidence provided-No additions in the hands of the assessee-210 days delay-Reaons for condonation of delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient-SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay and also on merits. [S. 69, Art.136]
PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha (2024) 469 ITR 149 / 301 Taxman 551 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha [2023] 156 taxmann.com 509 (P & H)(HC)
S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Civil contractor-Widening and strengthening of existing road-Purchase of marble for construction of High way Authority-Parties whose name cheques were alleged to be issued had deposed on oath that they had neither encashed cheque nor received amount-Order of Tribunal affirming the disallowance is affirmed-SLP of assessee is dismissed.[Art. 136]
Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 407 (SC) Editorial : Ramesh Harbibhau Gawli v. ITO (2024) 167 taxmann.com 323 (Bom)(HC)
S. 35D : Amortization of Preliminary expenses (General)-Claim of was granted by Assessing Officer-Claim could not be disallowed in subsequent year by Commissioner through his revisionary powers without disturbing decision in initial year —No challenge is made against the rectification. order passed by revenue-SLP disposed as infructuous.[S. 154,263, Art. 136]
CIT v. Subex Ltd. (2024) 301 Taxman 404 (SC) Editorial: Subex Ltd. v. CIT-III (2021) 132 taxmann.com 96 /285 Taxman 350(Karn)(HC)