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 and seizure-Loose sheet-Not form part of books of account-diaries/loose sheets-Order of High Court quashing the addition is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 132, Art. 136]

CIT (Appeals) v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 300 Taxman 601 (SC) Editorial : Dy.CIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma (2024) 159 taxmann.com 179 (Karn)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-No incriminating material-Deemed dividend-Deletion of addition is affirmed-No substantial question of law.[S. 2(22)(e), 132, 260A]

PCIT, Central v. M. Kiran Kumar (2024) 300 Taxman 563 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search or requisition-Block period of six years-No incriminating material for the relevant assessment year-Order of CIT (A) deleting the addition is affirmed-Order of Tribunal is set aside. [S. 132,260A]

Sunny Jacob Jewellers v. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 10 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Beyond three years-Sanction-Specified Authority-Sanction from Principal Commissioner-Not from Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or Chief Commissioner or Director General and not under section 151(i)-Prior approval was taken from Principal Commissioner in terms of section 151(i) and not by specified authority under section 151(ii)-Order as well as notice issued under section 148 is bad in law hence quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151 (i) 151 (ii), Art. 226]

Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 295 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Assessing Officer had proceeded without jurisdiction by applying amended provisions of section 149 to case in hand when he issued notice on 25-7-2022 overlooking fact that limitation had already expired on 31-3-2020-Reopening notice issued under section 148 is quashed.[S. 148, 149(1)(b) Art. 226]

Bhoomi Viral Shah v. ITO (2024) 300 Taxman 474 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained money-Sale consideration received in cash-Sale by Power of Attorney holder-Since a detailed adjudication on merits of information available with Assessing Officer and defence set up by assessee is not contemplated at stage of passing an order under section 148A(d)-Writ petition is dismissed.[S. 69A, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Power of Attorney Act, 1882, Art. 226,]

Agarwal Polysacks Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 535 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Amounts of investments not fully disclosed in books of account-Report from District Valuation Officer (DVO)-Fixed asset and Capital WIP-Failure to apply mind-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 48, 69A, 148, Art. 226]

Divine Infracon (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 300 Taxman 605 /242 DTR 565 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without considering the documents submitted by the assessee-Assessment order is set aside and matter is remanded for reconsideration from stage of reply to show cause notice cum draft assessment order.[S. 69, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Praveen Sanjiv v. ITO (2024) 300 Taxman 33 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Immovable property-Added entire sale consideration-[S. 69, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Pandian Narayanan v. NFAC (2024) 300 Taxman 559 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Officer who has issued the notice and heard the matter-Order is passed by the Officer who has not heard the matter-Order and notice is set aside.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Johnson Koomullil Thomas v. ITO (2024) 300 Taxman 318 (Ker)(HC)