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. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Sufficient time was not granted and personal hearing was not granted-Matter was remitted back. [S. 143(2), 156, Art. 226]
Jaffaorulla Syeaadunnishaa v. ACIT (2021) 282 Taxman 400 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Rejection of books of account-Excess consumption-Deletion of addition is held to be justified-No substantial question of law. [S. 44AB, 260A]
PCIT v. Bell Ceramics Ltd. (No. 1) (2021) 437 ITR 523 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Rejection of books of account-Excess consumption-Deletion of addition is held to be justified-No substantial question of law. [S. 44AB, 260A]
PCIT v. Bell Ceramics Ltd. (No. 1) (2021)437 ITR 523 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Adjournment was sought was granted-Allegation of no such email was generated from the office of the Income-tax department-Prima facie committed penal offence by forging documents-CBI was to be directed to enquire as to whether e-mail had been issued to assessee or not, and if so, by whom. [S. 142(1), Art. 226]
Three C. Homes (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 282 Taxman 134/ 204 DTR 105/ 321 CTR 513 (Delhi) (HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Appeal-Alternative remedy-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 246A, Art. 226]
Rakindo Kovai Township Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 438 ITR 474 (Mad.) (HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Share capital-Cash credits-Investment by foreign company-Appeal-Existence of alternative remedy-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 68, 246A, Art. 226]
Vishwatej Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT. (2021) 438 ITR 163 /2022) 284 Taxman 220/ 328 CTR 945/ 218 DTR 169 (Mad.) (HC)
S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Natural justice-Search and Seizure-Directions were neither arbitrary, illegal nor beyond the scope of the provision- Period during which the petitions remained pending shall be excluded while counting the period prescribed in the proviso to section 142(2C) of the Act. [S.14A, 142(2C), Art. 226]
Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 437 ITR 487 / 206 DTR 65/ 323 CTR 39 / 129 taxmann.com 344 (Guj.)(HC)Editorial: SLP is dismissed Dishman Infrastructure Ltd. v . ACIT ( 2022) 285 Taxman 192// 443 ITR 227 (SC)