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-Full and true disclosure-Change of opinion-Books seized not returned-Unable to draw balance-sheet-Subsequently drawing the balance sheet-Assessment under section 143(3) of the Act-Return not treated as defective-Subsequent subjective analysis of Assessing Officer that income of assessee was much higher than that assessed- Change of opinion- Reassessments are not justified-Once primary facts disclosed by assessee, burden shifts to Assessing Officer-Defective return-Burden on Assessing Officer to intimate defect to Assessee for rectification within time specified- Assessing Officer not exercising discretion- Return cannot be construed as defective burden on Assessing Officer to intimate defect to Assessee for rectification within time specified. [S. 139(9)(f), 145(1) 147, 149(1)(b)(iii)]

Mangalam Publications v CIT (2024)461 ITR 159 / 297 Taxman 537 /336 CTR 657 (SC) Editorial : CIT v. Mangalam Publications (2010) 323 ITR 6 (Ker)(HC), CIT v. Biju Varghees (2010) 323 ITR 36 (Ker) (HC), reversed.

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Different method of accounting-Capital gains-Computation-No failure to disclose material facts-Order of High Court is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 45, 48, 112(1)(c)(ii), 143(3) 148, Art, 136]

ACIT v. Lehman Brothers Investments Pte. Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 360(SC) Editorial : Refer Lehman Brothers Investments Pte. Ltd v. (2023) 454 ITR 331/293 Taxman 216/ 333 CTR 213 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Order passed under remand proceedings also has to follow mandatory procedure-Final assessment order without following the procedure is bad in law and unlawful.[S. 144BA(12), 144C(14A),263 Art.226]

Sinogas Management Pte. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2024] 461 ITR 330(Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-CBDT Circular No. 14 Of 1955- Duty of Assessing Officer to grant relief to assessee even if not claimed-DTAA-India-USA.[S.119, 139,143(1), 260A, art.12]

CIT(IT) v. Heidrick and Struggles Inc. (2024)461 ITR 33 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(2): Assessment-Notice-Assessment quashed on the ground that instructions issued by CBDT for selection of cases for scrutiny were not satisfied in the instant case-High Court confirmed the Tribunal order.[S.119, 144]

CIT v. Crystal Phosphates Ltd. [2024] 461 ITR 289 (P&H HC)

S. 92CA : Transfer pricing-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Tribunal holding Transfer Pricing Officer not empowered to hold transaction sham- High Court affirmed. [S. 37(1), 92C, 260A]

CIT v. LGE and C-NCC (Joint Venture) (2024)461 ITR 265 (T& P) (HC) Editorial : Refer LG Polymers India P.Ltd (2012) 16 ITR 240 (Visakhapatnam ) (Trib), CIT v. LGE and C-NCC (Joint Venture) (2024)461 ITR 266/ 297 Taxman 293 (SC),SLP of Revenue dismissed. Question of law kept open.

S. 92CA : Transfer pricing-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Tribunal holding Transfer Pricing Officer not empowered to hold transaction sham- High Court affirmed-Special Leave Petition Dismissed- Question of law kept open. [S. 37(1), 92C, Art.236]

CIT v. LGE and C-NCC (Joint Venture) (2024)461 ITR 266/ 297 Taxman 293 (SC) Editorial : Refer, CIT v. LGE and C-NCC (Joint Venture) (2024)461 ITR 265 (T& AP)(HC), also refer, LG Polymers India P.Ltd (2012) 16 ITR 240 (Visakhapatnam ) (Trib)

S. 80JJA : Bio-degradable waste-Collecting and processing-Undisclosed closing stock of a trading concern-Income not derived from the activity of manufacturing-Addition of entire stock as income justified-Business expenditure-Expenditure not supported by vouchers-Restriction of disallowance to 10 percent of expenditure is held to be justified. [S. 37(1), 260A]

Arvind Kumar v. ITAT [2024] 461 ITR 283 (P&H)(HC)

S. 69C : Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases-Sundry creditors-Only profit element embedded in credits can be taxed-Restricted to 25% of element of profit-Order of High Court is affirmed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 37, 69A, 143(3), Art.136]

PCIT v. Nandkishor Hulaschand Jalan (2024)461 ITR 338 /161 taxmann.com 81 (SC) Editorial: PCIT v. Nandkishor Hulaschand Jalan(2019) 412 ITR 357 (Guj)(HC)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Freight charges-Payments to contractor- Excess of Rs. 50,000 without deducting tax at source-No evidence to prove that there was no contract- High Court held that disallowance is justified- Special leave granted.[S. 194C, Art. 136]

Maruti Subray Patil v. CIT (2024)461 ITR 86 /298 Taxman 2 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Maruti Subray Patil (2016) 383 ITR 504 (Karn)(HC)