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 the expiry of four years-No failure to record reasons-Reasons offered at later stage cannot be considered-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Teofilo Fernando Antonio Pinto v. UOI (2024) 464 ITR 249 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice based on report from Department of Revenue Intelligence-Shah Commission report-No independent application of mind By Assessing Officer-Based on subsequent decision of Supreme Court-Notice is not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 261 (Bom)(HC)/Shantilal Khushaldas and Brothers v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 261 (Bom)( HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Neither reasons recorded nor order rejecting objections showing receipt chargeable to tax-Reassessment is held to be not valid-Capital gains-Transfer-Partner in firm-Bequeathed by father-Consent terms-Arbitration Award-Relinquishment of interest in partnership-Not transfer not liable to capital gains tax-Family arrangement-Not taxable-Onus on Department to establish certain receipt as income-Income from other sources-Firm continuing as going business with other partners-Receipts is not chargeable as income from other sources or as damages on dissolution of firm.[S. 2(24) 2(47) 45, 45(4), 56(2) 148]

Ramona Pinto v. Dy. CIT (2024) 464 ITR 305 / 336 CTR 543 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Faceless Assessment-Limitation-Penalty-Draft assessment order-Transfer Pricing Officer has no role after directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-Directions binding on Assessing Officer-Order is time-barred-Original return of income is directed to be accepted-Order and penalty notice set aside. [S. 92CA(4), 143(3), 144C(5), 144C(13), 156, 270A, 274, Art. 226]

Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2024) 464 ITR 595/ 338 CTR 149 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Opportunity of personal hearing must be given even if not requested in writing-No discretion with Assessing Officer-Assessment order is set aside. [143(3), 144B(6)(vii), 144B(6)(viii), 251, Art.226]

Satish Kumar Bansal HUF v. NFAC(2024) 464 ITR 578 / 338 CTR 726 (All)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Recovery of tax-Priority of debts-Corporate Insolvency Resolution-Overriding effect of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-Claim frozen as on date of Resolution plan-Interest cannot be charged under Sections 234A, 234C, while giving effect to order of Tribunal-Income-Tax does not have priority over debts of secured creditors. [S. 234A, 234B, 254(1) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 3, 4,13, 14(1)(a) 15,]

Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 464 ITR 144 / 336 CTR 102 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Search and seizure-Violation of principle of natural justice-Assessment order is set aside-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer-Seizure of Pen drive and other Electronic records-Evidentiary value-Mandatory conditions under law of evidence not complied with-Assessment order is set aside.[S. 132, 132(4), 153A, 271AAB(IA), 271AAD(1(i), Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 65B ]

SKM Animal Feeds and Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 213 (Mad)(HC)/Sivan Ramesh v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 213 (Mad)(HC)

S. 138 : Disclosure of information-PM CARES Fund-Third party-Satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner-Provisions override Right to information-Information sought regarding exemption in respect of PM Cares Fund-Central Information Commission does not have jurisdiction to direct furnishing of information [S. 138(2), Right To Information Act, 2005, S. 8(1)(j) 11, 22, Art. 226 ]

CPIO/Dy. CIT (E) v Girish Mittal (2024) 464 ITR 672 /158 taxmann.com 549 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship to be construed liberally-Delay in filing Form 10CCB-Special category States-Rectification of mistake-Duty of Assessing Officer-Application for rectification pending disposal for almost six years-Assessing Officer is duty bound to pass order expeditiously. [S.80IC, 143(1), 154, 264, Art. 226]

Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT (2024) 464 ITR 65 (Bom)(HC)

S. 115BAA: Tax on income of certain domestic companies-Determination of tax in certain cases-Delay in filing Form 10-IC-Technical problem on portal-Form filed within extended time granted by Income-Tax Authorities-Benefit of concessional rate of tax cannot be denied. [S. 115BAA(2), 139(1), Form No. 10-IC]

PCIT v. KGY Glass Industries (P.) Ltd. (2024) 296 Taxman 180/ 464 ITR 129/ 336 CTR 480 (Guj)(HC)