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.151A : Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment-Notices under section 148 must be issued in a faceless manner through automated allocation as per section 151A and the notification dated 29-3-2022. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) lacks the authority to issue such notices, rendering them illegal and invalid. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. Dy. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 148 (Bom.) (HC)

S.151A : Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment-Reassessment-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Officer held to be without jurisdiction [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Sprite Investment (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2024) 166 taxmann.com 156 / 432 ITR 342 (Bom)(HC)

S. 150: Assessment-Order on appeal-Conditions set out in S. 150 are required to be fulfilled for invoking S. 150 for issuance of notice under S. 148 beyond the period stipulated under S. 149-Appeal of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 148, 254(1), 260A]

PCIT Central v. Capital Power Systems Ltd. [2025] 302 Taxman 481 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Provisions of relevant assessment year applicable for reassessment proceedings. [S. 147 148,149(1)(b), Art. 226]

Bhoomi Viral Shah v. ITO (2024) 473 ITR 574 (Bom.) (HC) Editorial: This decision is prior to the Apex Court’s judgment of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024)469 ITR 46/ 301 ITR 238 (SC) (dated 3 October 2024.)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Incorrect premise-Reassessment notice based on incorrect assumption of non-filing of return-Held to be invalid-Order cannot be justified on basis of reasons supplied subsequently-DTAA-India-Mauritius [S. 9, 147,148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 13(4), Art. 226]

Banyan Real Estate Fund Mauritius v. ACIT (IT) (2024) 165 taxmann.com 210 /(2025) 473 ITR 466 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-No opportunity of being heard-Violation of principles of natural justice-Reassessment notice u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) quashed [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(a), 149(1)(b)]

Nalinaksha Sarma v. UOI (2025) 473 ITR 257 (Gauhati) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notices issued in name of dead person-Participation cannot be regarded as waiver-Notices issued are invalid-Reassessment proceedings set aside. [S. 147, 148,148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Kinshuk Goel Legal Heir v. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 323 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-The interest income received from Non-Convertible Debentures (NCDs) was appropriately taxed under section 194LD, and could not be characterized as dividend liable for Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) under section 115-O-Nexus between material relied on and formation of belief is necessary-Recorded reasons cannot be substituted-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S.115O, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 194LD, Art. 226]

Genpact Luxembourg S. A. R. L. v. ACIT (IT) (2025) 473 ITR 68 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order is passed without giving assessee adequate opportunity to reply to the initial notice-Order is not valid-Matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Ahmedabad District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 472 ITR 214 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Petitioner had explicitly sought for a personal hearing-Not granted-Breach of the principles of natural justice-Order is set aside.[S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Pico Capital Private Limited v. Dy. CIT (2025) 170 taxmann.com 638 (Bom)(HC)