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. 148: Reassessment – Issuance of notice of reassessment – Resolution personal -Provisions of this Code to override other laws – For period prior to approval of resolution plan under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’) – Once the public announcement is made under the IBC by the Resolution Professional calling upon all concerned, including the statutory bodies, to raise claim, it would be expected from all the stakeholders to diligently raise their claim- Not maintainable against the Corporate Debtor- Notice issue was quashed (S. 147, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 , S. 7, 30(2), 238, Art , 226 )

Murli Industries Limited v. ACIT (Nag -Bench ) ( 2022) 441 ITR 8 / 209 DTR 337/ 324 CTR 355 (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org .

S. 281 : Certain transfers to be void-Transfer to defraud revenue-Mortgages-Pendency of recovery proceedings-Transaction or transfer became void-Doctrine of the priority of Crown debts-Disputed factors cannot be adjudicated by the High court in a writ petition. [S. 222, Schedule II Rule. 11, Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1983, S. 31B, Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, S. 26E, Art. 226, 265, 268A]

Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Tax Recovery Officer (2021) 204 DTR 401 / 322 CTR 162 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 270AA : Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc-Application accepted the assessee cannot file an appeal or revision application-Application is rejected there is no bar-Matter remanded. [S. 246A, 264, 270AA(4), Art. 226 ]

Haren Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2021) 206 DTR 465 / 323 CTR 14 / 284 Taxman 58 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-COVID-19-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing was set aside-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

Narayana Chetty Roja v. PCIT (2021) 206 DTR 421 (AP)(HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Application-Full and true disclosure-Opportunity of being heard-Settlement Commission directed to get Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report-Order was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing and without waiting for FSL report-Order of Settlement Commission was set aside-Directed to pass the order after getting FSL report and an opportunity of hearing. [S. 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

Gupta Trademart (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 407/205 DTR 401 / 322 CTR 477 / .( 2022] 285 Taxman 632 (Raj.) (HC) Rajendra Gupta v. Dy.CIT (2021) 439 ITR 4007/ 205 DTR 401 / 322 CTR 477// .( 2022] 285 Taxman 632 (Raj.) (HC)

S. 245D : Settlement Commission-Procedure-Application-Directed to file additional income-Entitle to immunity from penalty and prosecution. [S. 153CA, 245C, 245D(4), Art. 226]

P. Suman (Smt.) v. CIT (2021) 205 DTR 385 / 322 CTR 655 / 130 taxmann.com 249/( 2022) 440 ITR 214 /285 Taxman 587 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Manner of acquiring the income had been explained-Additional income was disclosed-Order of settlement Commission rejection of application was set aside-Directed the Interim board to decide the matter in accordance with law. [S. 56(2)(vii), 132(4A), 245D, 292C, Art. 226]

Indu Srivastava v. ITSC (2021) 206 DTR 265 / 323 CTR 174 /( 2022) 440 ITR 280 / 286 Taxman 52 (All.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Stay of demand-Adjustment of refund without giving an intimation in writing is held to be bad in law. [Art. 226]

Jet Privilege (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 205 DTR 145 / 322 CTR 684 / 131 taxmann.com 119 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 245 : Refund-Set off of refunds against tax remaining payable-Adjustment refunds in excess of 20% of outstanding is contrary to instruction No 1914 of 21-3-1996-Assessing Officer was directed to refund amount adjusted in excess of 20 per cent of disputed demand. [S. 220, Art. 226]

Eko India Financial Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 205 DTR 113 / 322 CTR 201 / 283 Taxman 584 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 237 : Refunds-Commercial establishment-Appeal was decided in favour-Directed to refund the amount with interest with in four weeks-If there are no provision for payment of interest then the interest shall became payable at 12 % p.a. on the amount due after expiry of four weeks. [Wealth-tax Act, 1957, S. 2(ea)(i), 34A, Art. 226]

Mohandas Isardas Chatlani v. ITO (2021) 439 ITR 577 / 205 DTR 102 / 322 CTR 365 (Bom.)(HC)