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-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)

Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.

S.5: Property held benami liable to confiscation-Benami transactions-Change of law-Order of Tribunal following Supreme Court decision holding amendments brought in 2016 not retrospective-Appeal against order passed by Tribunal Department given liberty to proceed based on outcome of review petition filed before Supreme Court. [S. 2(9), 3,4, Art. 226]

Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition). v Anjani Constructions Pvt. Ltd.(2025) 478 ITR 670 (Mad)(HC)

Electricity Act, 2003,

S. 3: Writ-Maintainability-State instrumentality-Tariff determination-Renewable energy-Wind power-Accelerated depreciation-The Nigam could not take advantage of its dominant position to bind them to an inapplicable tariff for the entire project life-The plea of estoppel based on execution of power purchase agreements was rejected-Orders of the Electricity Commission and the Appellate Tribunal were upheld.-Order No. 1 of 2010 dated 30-1-2010. [S, 61(h), 62(1)(a), 86(1)(e) Income-tax Act, 1961, S. 32, Art.12, 226]

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Green Infra Corporate Wind Power Ltd. (2025) 478 ITR 617(SC)

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998

S. 88:Settelemt of tax payable-Declaration-Person-Settlement of Income-tax dispute under Scheme-Assessment proceedings cannot continue Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme.[S. 87(k),92, Art.226

Jeevan Prakash v CIT (2025) 478 ITR 584 (Telangana)(HC)