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-If income forming basis of reopening notice is not assessed, Assessing Officer cannot independently assess other escaped income subsequently noticed. [S.147 Expln. 3, 148, Art. 226]

Yashoda Shivappa Nagangoudar v. ITO [2022] 138 taxmann.com 296 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Depreciation-Rate of depreciation-Computer software-Where depreciation on computer software was allowed at 60 per cent in the original scrutiny assessment, reopening the assessment after four years to restrict the rate to 25 per cent was held invalid as it was based on a mere change of opinion, there being no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. [S. 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Indian Energy Exchange Ltd v. ACIT [2022] 140 taxmann.com 369 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Change of opinion –Interest on capital work in progress-Reopening based on material already on record-No failure by assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts-Notice quashed. [S. 36(1)(iii), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. ACIT [2022] [2022] 140 taxmann.com 345 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Reopening an assessment to disallow interest expense, where a query on the underlying loan and its utilisation was raised and answered during the original scrutiny assessment, amounts to a mere change of opinion and is not justified. [S. 24, 57, 143(3), Art. 226]

Nishith Madanlal Desai v. CIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 52 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Where assessee had fully and truly disclosed all material facts for claim of interest expense, reopening of assessment on ground that said interest ought to have been capitalised to work-in-progress amounts to a mere change of opinion and is invalid. [S. 36(1)(iii),. 148, Art. 226]

Macrotech Developers Ltd. v. ACIT [2022] 139 taxmann.com 333 (Bom.)(HC)  

S. 147 : Reassessment-After expiry of four years-Change of opinion-HUF as a partner-All facts disclosed during original assessment under section 143(3)-Reopening invalid. [S. 143(3), 148, 184, Art. 226]

S.A. Developers v. ACIT [2022] 138 taxmann.com 170 (Bom.) (HC)  

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Reopening on the ground that deduction under section 80HHC ought to have been determined after setting off brought-forward losses held to be a mere change of opinion on the same material and, hence, not permissible. [S. 80HHC, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Transchem Ltd. v. ACIT [2022] 137 taxmann.com 335 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 28(i) : Business loss-Mark‑to‑market loss on forward contracts-Ascertained liability-Allowable as business loss-Not speculative-Not required to be added back while computing book profits under section 115JB. [S. 43(5), 73]

PCIT v. DSP Merill Lynch Capital Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 579 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : Affirmed in PCIT v. DSP Merill Lynch Capital Ltd. [2023] 294 Taxman 161/ 456 ITR 768 (SC)

S. 28(i) : Business income-Adventure in the nature of trade-Surplus on sale of premises-Where assessee-company, dealing in real estate, sold office premises before taking possession, surplus was assessable as business income as cumulative facts established intention was to resell for profit, not for own use. [S. 45, 260A]

Radha Madhav Investments Ltd v. DCIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 421 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 14A : Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Shares held as stock‑in‑trade excluded from Rule 8D; no disallowance where assessee’s own funds exceed tax‑free investments. [R. 8D]

PCIT v. DSP Merill Lynch Capital Ltd. [2022] 142 taxmann.com 579 (Bom.)(HC)