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. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Penny stock-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was held to be not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Priti Paras Savla v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Depreciation-Technical error by Auditor-Notice to withdraw the depreciation was held to be not valid. [S. 32, 148, Form No 3CD, Art. 226]

Baroque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 463 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No tangible material-Non-Resident-Not offering the interest and bonus received on surrender of policy before maturity-Provision of Section 80CC(2) is not applicable-Reassessment was quashed [S. 10(10)(d), 80CC(2), 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

AMI Ashish Shah v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 417 / 212 DTR 14/ 328 CTR 562 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Fabricated bogus documents-After disposal of objection the assessee participated in the proceedings-Sanction was issued within few hours of receiving information cannot be held to be non application of mind-Reassessment proceedings was held to be valid. [S. 69A, 143(3), 148, 151, Art. 226]

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 359 / 209 DTR 17 / 324 ITR 133 / 286 Taxman 244(Bom.)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Construction business-Change of method from project completion method to percentage completion method-Revenue neutral-Revised Accounting Standard 7-Held to be valid.

CIT v. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd (2022) 440 ITR 343 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Rejection of books of account-Bogus purchases-Order of Tribunal modifying the quantum was set aside-Cost of Rs.5000 was imposed on the assessee. [S. 145(3)]

CIT v. Mohan and Co (2022) 440 ITR 247 (Raj.)(HC) CIT v. Agrasen Jewellers (2022) 440 ITR 247 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Foreign Company-Draft Assessment order was not passed-DTAA-India-Singapore-Demand raised was stayed. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (IT) (2022) 440 ITR 242 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment- Non-Resident-Draft assessment order was served-Objections were considered-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 246A, Art. 226]

Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 140 / 209 DTR 248 / 324 CTR 426 / 285 Taman 56 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without show cause notice and draft assessment order. Directed to file an affidavit. [S. 143(3), 144B(9), Art. 226]

Rmsi Private Limited v. NFAC(2022) 440 ITR 245/ 285 Taxman 708 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Request for adjournment to notice and draft assessment order-Neither rejected nor duly intimated-Order was set aside. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]

Magick Woods Exports P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 607 (Mad.)(HC)