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 –With in four years-Change of opinion – Payment to related parties – Incentives to senior employees – Difference in VAT return and Turnover as per profit and loss account -Reconciliation – Questions asked in the course of original assessment proceedings – No discussion in the assessment order – Reassessment notice was quashed. [ S. 40A(2)(b) , 148 , Art , 226 ]
Maharashtra Oil Extraction Private Limited v. Dy.CIT (2022) 287 Taxman 465 / 114 CCH 315 ( Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org
S. 88 : Tax arrear-Amount payable-Adjustment of refund was made as per request of the assessee-Not disclosed the truth and suppressed the communication-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 245, Art. 226]
Anand Nagar & Company v. CCIT (2022) 209 DTR 313 / 324 CTR 370 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 184 : Charge of tax and surcharge-Payment of tax-Credit for advance tax-Credit for advance tax must be given-Directed the respondents to issue certificate as required by Rule 4(5). [S. 183, 185 IT ACT, S. 139, 199, 210, 219, Art. 226]
Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali v. PCIT (2022)443 ITR 148 / 211 DTR 1/ 286 Taxman 580 / 325 CTR 264 (Bom.)(HC)/Editorial : Notice is issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , PCIT v. Kamla Chandrasingh Kabali (2023) 294 Taxman 608 (SC)
S. 9(c) : Act not to apply in certain cases-Disqualification of persons under prosecution-Named in charge sheet and first information report-Denial of benefit is held too be valid. [Indian Penal Code, 1860, S 120B, 420, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S. 131(1)(d), 132(2), Art. 226]
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCIT (2022) 441 ITR 434 / 209 DTR 51 / 324 CTR. 1/ 285 Taxman 610 (Bom.)(HC) .Editorial ,SLP of assessee dismissed , Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCIT ( 2022 ) 443 ITR 358 (St) / 287 Taxman 223 (SC)
S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Pendency of appeal-Condonation of delay-Appeal admitted prior to January 2020-Appeal pending-Directed the respondent to process the declaration. [S. 2(1)(a), Art. 226]
Om Shivam Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 441 ITR 655/ 213 DTR 426/ 326 CTR 802 (Bom.) (HC)
S. 2(f) : Disputed tax-Amount payable by declarant-Interest-Interest granted under section 244A cannot be recovered by revenue authority under Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, by adding same to amount of disputed tax payable by assessee. [S. 3, IT ACT, S. 234D, 244A, Art. 226]
Cooperative Rabobank U A v. CIT(IT) (2022) 284 Taxman 40 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 2(1)(a)(ii) : Appellant-Locus standi-Rejection of application on the ground that there is no clarity of Legal Heirs-Appeal was filed beyond limitation period-Rejection of application was held to be not valid-Directed the Designated Authority to accept the declaration [S. 3, 4(1), IT Act, S. 132, Art. 226]
Jayantilal K. Bhagat v. ACIT (2022) 445 ITR 515/ 324 CTR 632 / 210 DTR 81 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Interest receipt was shown as capital receipt-Commissioner refusing to follow the order of Tribunal and dismissing the revision application-Order of Tribunal is binding on the Commissioner-Order of Commissioner was quashed-If any judgements to be relied the Commissioner should give an opportunity to the petitioner to deal with those judgements-Matter remanded. [S. 4, Art.226]
Karanja Terminal & Logistic Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 442 ITR 400 / 211 DTR 161 / 325 CTR 392 / 287 Taxman 410 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Exempt income-Strategic investment-View taken by Assessing Officer being a possible view could not have been interfered by Commissioner-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision was affirmed. [S. 14A, R. 8D, 260A]
CIT v. Future Corporate Resources Ltd. (2022) 284 Taxman 122 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Interest-Order of CIT(A) directing to withdraw investment allowance was set aside by the Tribunal-Settlement Commission reducing the interest payable by assessee-Writ of revenue to set aside the order of Settlement Commission was dismissed. [S. 32A, 145, 220(2), 245D(4), Art. 226]
UOI v. Dodsal Ltd. (2022) 441 ITR 47 / 211 DTR 189 / 325 CTR 273 / 286 Taxman 33 (Bom.)(HC)