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- Bogus sales and purchases – Dealer in iron and steel- If the AO disallowed 2.5% of alleged bogus purchases during the regular assessment-Reassessment to disallow entire amount is said to be bad in law- There is difference between revisional powers and reassessment . [ S. 68, 69 148, 263 ]
Saurabh Suryakant Mehta v. ITO (Bom)(HC), www.itatonline.org
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel – Final order passed by the AO which was sought to be corrected by issue of corrigendum – Time to pass draft assessment order had expired – Order passed was without jurisdiction.[ S.92C, 153A(2A) ]
PCIT v. Lionbridge Technologies ( P) Ltd ( 2018) 100 taxmann.com 413/( 2019) 260 Taxman 273 / 173 DTR 281/ 306 CTR 335 ( Bom) (HC)
S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Finding in case of another assessee- No failure to disclose material facts – Reassessment is not valid. [ S. 80IB(10),148 ]
PCIT v. Vaman Estate (2020) 113 taxmann.com 405 ( Bom) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed ; PCIT v. Vaman Estate. (2020) 269 Taxman 196 (SC)
S. 153D : Assessment – Search – Approval – Question of validity of approval goes to the root of the matter and could have been raised at any time- Casual and mechanical manner without application of mind – Order is bad in law [ S.143(3),153C ]
PCIT v. Shreelekha Damani ( Smt) ( 2019) 307 CTR 218 / 174 DTR 86( Bom) (HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- Two views possible and also when an appeal is pending before the CIT(A) on particular issue , Commissioner has no power to revise the order regarding that issue – Court also held that , since the matter has been pending for a quite long number of years and there has been repeated orders of assessment , the Court directed the AO to give effect to the of reassessment dt 31-12-2009 , wherein the AO has granted the benefit of S.54F of the Act . [ S.45,54, 54F , 263(1)(c) ]
Renuka Philip( Smt ) v. ITO ( 2018) 409 ITR 567/( 2019) 173 DTR 24 ( Mad) (HC)
S. 245D : Settlement Commission – When the Settlement commission passed the order following due process of law – The order passed by the Settlement Commission does not require interference. Department cannot be said to be aggrieved by such order Revenue cannot compel the Settlement Commission to reopen the earlier years by passing rectification order- Petition is dismissed .[S. 154, 245C,245D(4),245HA, Art .226 ]
CIT v. ITSC (2018) 409 ITR 626/ 258 Taxman 36/ ( 2019) 307 CTR 658 / 174 DTR 391 (Guj) (HC)
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)