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-Reopening of assessment by succeeding Assessing Officer to disallow excess deduction was held to be change of opinion which was held to be impermissible [ S.80IA, 143(3) 148 ]

Ajanta Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 402 ITR 72 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147: Reassessment – Recorded reasons- Wrongly stating matters for earlier years pending before High court instead of before Tribunal being inadvertent error, does not invalidate reasons recorded for reopening of assessment — Reopening was held to be valid [S. 10A,143(1), 148 ]

Gateway Technolabs Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 437 (Guj) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- There was no failure to disclose all material facts – Reassessment was held to be not valid – Alternative remedy is no bar to file writ petition if the action of the authority is beyond their jurisdiction . [S. 148 ]

Cedric De Souza Faria. v. DCIT (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Deemed dividend – No failure to disclose material facts hence reassessment was held to be not valid [ S. 148 ]

Gujarat Mall Management Company Private Limited v. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 329 (Guj) ( HC)

S. 147: Reassessment — After the expiry of four years – Failure to repatriate export proceeds with in time stipulated – Reassessment proceedings was held to be valid . AO was directed to verify the contention of the assesse on facts .[ S.10B, 148 ]

Suntec Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2018) 401 ITR 101 / 170 DTR 318/ 305 CTR 102 (Ker) ( HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Agricultural income –Change of opinion- Objection was disposed without speaking order-No failure to disclose material facts -Notice for reassessment only for the relevant year and there were hundreds of coffee growers whose income were also exempted, reopening notice issued only against assessee during relevant assessment year was unjustified .[ S.10(1), 148 ]

Karti P. Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Nalini Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233 / 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) P.Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Reopening of assessment on the ground that activities of assessee is not eligible for deduction was held to be change of opinion, hence reopening was held to be not valid [ S.80IB(8A), 148 ]

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd. v. ACIT ( 2018) 402 ITR 177 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147:Reassessment- Transfer pricing – Permanent establishment – Income had already been disclosed by the Indian subsidiary and found by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) to be at arm’s length. Reassessment was held to be bad in law .[ S. 92C, 148 ]

Honda Motor Co. Ltd. v. ADCIT ( 2018) 164 DTR 97/ 301 CTR 601/255 Taxman 72 (SC) Editorial: Review petition of revenue is dismissed ACIT v. Honda Motor Co. Ltd ( 2019) 265 Taxman 542/ 311 CTR 259/ 183 DTR 24 (SC) / Order in Principal Officer , LG.Electronics Inc v. Asstt. DIT( IT) ( 2014) 271 CTR 663/ 108 DTR 201 ( All ) (HC) was set a side

S. 147 : Reassessment –Change of opinion- Deduction was allowed in the original assessment, on the same facts to hold that the excess deduction was allowed will be change of opinion therefore ,reassessment was held to be bad in law . [S.10A,148 ]

ITO v. TechSpan India Private Ltd( 2018)404 ITR 10/ 165 DTR 130/ 302 CTR 74/ 255 Taxman 152 .(SC) , www.itatonline.orgEditorial: Techspan India (P) Ltd v. ITO ( 2006)283 ITR 212/ 203 CTR 550(2007) 158 Taxman 182 ( Delhi) (HC)

S. 145:Method of accounting – Developer –Percentage completion method – Accounting Standards AS-1, AS-7 & AS-9, the Guidance Note on Accounting for Real Estate Transactions issued by the ICAI- Percentage of revenue recognised by the CIT(A) was held to be justified. [ S. 145(2) ]

Vastukar Township Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT ( Jaipur)(Trib), www.itatonline.org