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-Change of opinion-Deduction was allowed in the original assessment- on the same facts to hold that the excess deduction was allowed will be change of opinion-therefore, reassessment was held to be bad in law. [S. 10A,148]
ITO v. Techspan India (P) Ltd. (2018) 404 ITR 10/165 DTR 130/302 CTR 74/255 Taxman 152 (SC)
S. 145: Method of accounting – Valuation of inventories – Finished goods – Goods valued below cost – Stock in trade- Rejection of method of valuation is held to be justified .
CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 44/54 Taxman 499 91 CTR 108 (SC)
S.145: Method of accounting – A person cannot make a profit from himself- Revaluation is not taxable event. [S.4 , Indian Income -tax Act, 1922, S.13]
Sir Kikabhai Premcahnd v. CIT (1953) 24 ITR 506/1953 AIR 509/1954 SCR 214
S.144: Best Judgment Assessment – Bogus purchases – Unregistered dealers –Addition of alleged bogus purchase creditors after rejection of books of account – assessee brought on record, where CIT(A) in penalty appeal proceedings affidavits of 13 unregistered dealers out of whom 12 were examined by the Officer, accepted the explanation of assesssee that said creditors are genuine and accordingly deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. That The dealers stood by the assertion made by the assessee about the purchases on credit from them-Held Factual basis on addition was made in quantum proceedings stands dispelled by the affidavits and statements of the concerned unregistered dealers in penalty proceedings- Addition cannot be justified, much less, sustained (Other contentions raised by assesse not adjudicated)- Addition is held to be not justified . [ S.68 , 271(1) (c ) ]
Basir Ahmed Sisodiya v. ITO (2020) 424 ITR 1/188 DTR 20/314 CTR 1/116 taxman.com 375/ 271 Taxman 247 (SC)
S.143(3) : Assessment – Affidavit – When a statement is given in affidavit the same is proved to be correct unless proved otherwise [S.69A, High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisations) Ordinance, 1946, Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, S.23 ]
Mehta Parikh & Co v. ITO (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)/AIR 1956 SC 554
S.143(3): Assessment – Principle of res-judicata- Strictly Res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings. However, where a fundamental aspect permeating through different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year [S. 11, 12 ]
Radhasaomi Satsang v. CIT (1991) 100 CTR 267/(1992) 193 ITR 321/60 Taxman 248 (SC)
. 143(3): Assessment-Natural justice -Denial of opportunity to cross examine witness-Failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in breach of principles of natural justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. [Central Excise Act, 1944, S.3, Rules 1944, R. 173C)
Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC)
S.143(3): Assessment – Amalgamation – Date of Amalgamation – Specified in scheme of amalgamation and approved by the Court without specifying any other date – Date specified in scheme should be taken as transfer date. [S. 2(IB), Constitution of India, Art. 226, Companies Act 1956, S. 391, S. 394]
Marshall Sons and Co (India) v. ITO (1996) 88 Taxman 619/(1997) 223 ITR 809/138 CTR 1(SC)/2 SCC 302
S. 143(2): Assessment – Notice – Failure to issue a notice u/s 143(2) renders the assessment order void even if the assessee has participated in the proceedings – Deeming fiction does not operate to save complete absence of notice. [S. 292BB]
CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325/266 Taxman 171/310 CTR 8/180 DTR 313 (SC)