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
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
S. 73 : Determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilised for any reason other than fraud or any wilful -misstatement or suppression of facts – Demands and recovery – Mere claim of demand being without jurisdiction does not warrant waiver of statutory pre-deposit requirement for filing appeal against GST order- Review – Maintainability – Procedural Lapse – Absence of Proper Advocate’s Certificate – No new grounds for review – Review petition is dismissed with costs of Rs 10000. [S.107, Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, 226, Bombay High Court (O.S.) Rules, Art. 226]
Supreme Construction & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org
S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes- Powers of CBDT – Genuine hardship – Reassessment – Fictitious income – CBDT’s refusal to allow re computation despite established fraud – Order quashed and set aside. [S. 10A, 119(2)(b), 139(5), 147, 154,245, 264, 281B, Art. 14, 19(1)(g), 226 , 265, 300A ]
Satyam Computer Services Limited v. CBDT (2025) 343 CTR 521 / 247 DTR 401 /171 taxmann.com 656 /476 ITR 262 (Telangana) (HC) www.itatonline .org .
S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice –Additional ground admitted – Approval from incorrect authority – Notice issued without valid sanction from specified authority – Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 144C(13) , 147,148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii), Art. 226]
Abdul Saeed Issak v. INT Tax Ward (3) (Mum)(Trib) . www.itatonline .org .
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record –Limitation – COVID extension not applicable –Rectification application is filed beyond period of six months – Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone delay – Writ petition is dismissed. [Art. 226]
Leena Power Tech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (Bom)(HC)www.itatonline .org
S. 147: Reassessment – With in four years- Change of opinion – No fresh tangible material – Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 35AC, 80G, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]
Lupin Limited v. Dy CIT 3(4) (Bom)(HC). www.itatonline.org
S. 250 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Procedure – Stay of demand – Refund adjustment – Delay in disposal of stay application – Strictures – The delay of six years in deciding the stay application is unjustified and that respondents cannot take advantage of their own delay- The Court directed the revenue to refund the amount within four weeks and suggested that the petitioner apply for an early hearing before CIT(A) – The court further directed CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal before 31 May 2025 and ordered Chief Commissioner of Income -tax to investigate the delay in disposing of the appeal pending since 2018- Writ petition is allowed . [S. 143(1),143(3), 225, 226, 245, 250(6A), Art. 226]
Mahesh Mathuradas Ganatra v. CPC (Bom)(HC)www.itatonline .org
S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice -Income from other sources – Failure to respond to notice – Audit objection after amendment – Factual disputes can not be adjudicated in writ proceedings when an alternative remedy is available- Writ petition is dismissed with liberty to file an appeal. [S. 57, 142(1), 143(3), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Sanjay Patel v. ACIT(Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org
S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Development agreement – Cost Inflation Index – Year of taxability – Tribunal’s common order applied to all co-owners – Miscellaneous application of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 45 , 48 , 254(1)]
ACIT v. Neelam Omprakash Singh (Mum)( Trib)www.itatonlline .org
S. 148: Reassessment – Income of any other person – Search – Search material pertains to third party – Notice of reassessment under Section 148 is held without jurisdiction – Section 153C and not section 148 is to be resorted to- Notice of reassessment is quashed and set aside . [S. 132, 147, 151(1), 153A, 153C, Art. 226]
Sejal Jewellery & others v. UOI .(Bom) (HC) www.itatonline.org
S. 264: Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Credit for tax deducted at source-Double taxation agreement-Refund interest-Respondents are directed to refund the amount along with statutory interest forthwith. [S. 90, 155(14), 199, Form No 266AS, Art. 226]
Munchener Ruckversicherungs Gesellshaft Aktiengesellschaft In Munchen v.CIT (IT) (2024) 341 CTR 941 / 8 NYPCTR 1232 (Delhi)(HC)