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. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Service of notice-Notice without recording satisfaction is held to be not valid-Subsequent notice after valid satisfaction is held to be valid-High court can find out whether proper satisfaction is recorded or not, however cannot consider sufficiency of reasons [S. 132, 282, 282A Rule, 127, 127A, Art. 226]
6th Sense Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. PDIT (2021) 436 ITR 90 / 203 DTR 177/ (2023) 334 CTR 172 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Death of assessee-Notice issued to deceased assessee-Notice and order not valid. [S. 144, 147, 271F, 271(1)(c), Art. 226]
Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara (Mrs.) v. PCIT (2021) 436 ITR 469 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Hindu Undivided Family-Partition-Sale consideration-Exemption-Reassessment notice to tax capital gains in the hands of Karta is held to be not valid. [S. 45, 54F, 148, 171, Art. 226]
A.P. Oree (Kartha) v. ITO (2021)436 ITR 3 / 203 DTR 153 / 282 Taxman 57 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Failure to deduct tax at source-Issue not considered in the original assessment–Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts or go in to sufficiency of reasons for reopening-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 9(1)(i), 40(a)(ia) 148, Art. 226]
Sutherland Global Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 436 ITR 122/ 207 DTR 408/ 323 CTR 690 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sale of land-Borrowed satisfaction-Non application of mind before issue of notice-Notice is held to be not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]
Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola v. ACIT (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj.) (HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Short term capital gains-Dividend-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 10 (38), 148]
PCIT v. M. R. Narayanan (2021) 436 ITR 520 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Transfer Pricing-Arm’s length price-Draft Assessment order mandatory-Not curable defects-Order quashed [S. 143(3), 271(1)(c)]
GE Oil and Gas India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2021)436 ITR 168 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Tribunal remanding the matter-Assessing Officer passing final order-Passing of draft order is mandatory-Order quashed and remanded. [S. 92CA(4), 143(3), 254(1), Art. 226]
Durr India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021)436 ITR 111 / 203 DTR 419 / 323 CTR 86(Mad.)(HC)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Arm’s length price-Remand by Tribunal-Order is valid-Entire procedure under section 144C need not be repeated. [S. 254(1), Art. 226]
Enfinity Solar Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 436 ITR 188 / 204 DTR 201 / 321 CTR 716 / 282 Taxman 210 (Mad.)(HC)