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 —With in four years -Survey -Related company-Inaccurate information of shareholdings shown in notice and illogical conclusions — Reassessment is held to be bad in law .[ S.133A, 148 ]
Kolahai Infotech Pvt. Ltd v . ITO (2018) 409 ITR 595 (Delhi)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment —With in four years-Change of opinion- Claim of exemption was accepted in original assessment after scrutiny – Reassessment to withdraw Exemption on ground that some other aspects of claim was not examined will be change of opinion which is not permissible . [ S.10S, 10B, 148, 264 ]
Hitech Outsourcing Services. v. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 609 (Guj)(HC)
S.147:Reassessment —with in four years- Change of opinion -Opinion of revenue Audit party- Foreign Exchange Fluctuation gain on interest income is not allowable — Notice for reassessment is held to be invalid [ S.148 ]
FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 560 (Delhi)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment —With in four years -Reasons for notice must be communicated-Failure to communicate the reason is not procedural lapse, it goes to the root of the matter – Mere participation of the assessee or authorised representative in the reassessment proceedings does not amount to the assessee being made aware or known of the reasons for such reopening- order is not valid. [ S.148 ]
CIT v. V. Ramaiah (2018) 409 ITR 580/ 170 DTR 163 (Karn)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment —With in four years -Cash credit — Capital – Partner- Return was not filed – No specific direction by CIT(A)- Notice for reassessment was held to be valid . [ S.68, 148 ]
Alfa Investments. v. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 540 (Mad) (HC) Editorial: Decision of single judge in Alfa Investments. v. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 445 ( Mad) (HC) is affirmed .
S.147:Reassessment –With in four years-Change of opinion- Block assessment -Notice to reassess amount discovered during post search enquiries is held to be not valid . [ S.132,148, 158BC ]
P. A. Ahamed. v. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 530 /( 2019) 177 DTR 341/ 308 CTR 574 (Ker)(HC)
S. 145A : Method of accounting – Valuation -Stock- Trading in shares — Valuation of shares according to net realisable value is held to be justified .[S.145(2) ]
P. Amarnath Reddy. v DCIT (2018) 409 ITR 645 (Mad)(HC)
S. 80-O : Royalties – Foreign enterprises -Fees for technical services rendered to foreign entity — Explanation added with effect from 1-4-1992 — Fees for services rendered in India- Not entitled to deduction – Principle of consistency or doctrine of precedents would not apply when there is change in law.
SGS India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT (2018) 409 ITR 550/ 304 CTR 640/ 169 DTR 219 (Bom)(HC)
S. 80IC : Special category States -Initial Assessment Year —Substantial expansion- Claimed 100% deduction for five years- Cannot claim deduction at 100 Per Cent. beyond period of five years on ground of substantial expansion.
Admac Formulations. v. CIT (2018) 409 ITR 661 (P&H)(HC) Editorial: Order in Hycron Electronics v. ITO ( 2015) 41 ITR 486 (Chd) (Trib) is affirmed
S. 45(4) : Capital gains – Distribution of capital asset – Dissolution of firm -Change in constitution of firm -Retirement of some partners and induction of new partners — No revaluation of assets — Businesses continued — Firm reconstituted and not dissolved-Not liable to pay capital gains tax . [ S. 45,187(2) ]
G. H. Reddy And Associates v. ACIT (2018) 409 ITR 514 (Mad) (HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue s dismissed ACT v G. H. Reddy And Associates ( 2019) 418 ITR 11 (St)/ ( 2020 ) 274 Taxman 283 (SC)