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-Faceless Assessment-Best judgment-Statement of accommodation entry provider-Search and seizure-Bogus financial transactions-No live nexus between material relied and belief formed-The name of the assessee was not mentioned in the statement recorded-Reasons recorded cannot be supplemented by assessment order or affidavit-Best judgement assessment-No relevant material with the Assessing Officer-Assessment order is quashed. [S. 132(4), 144, 144B 147, 148, Art.226]

Pasari Casting and Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. (2024) 463 ITR 469) / 159 taxmann.com 675 /339 CTR 513 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Capital gains-Transfer-Redemption of preference shares-Loss-No new material-Reassessment-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 2(47) 47(iv) 148, Art. 226]

NFAC v. The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. (2024)463 ITR 152 (SC) Editorial: The Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd v. NFAC (2024) 463 ITR 145 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Eligible assessee-Assessment-Limitation-Draft assessment order-No variation in income-Barred by limitation-Order of Tribunal is affirmed-DTAA-India-Cyprus-[S.144C(15)(b)(ii)), art. 11]

CIT(IT) v. S. A. Chitra Ventures Ltd. (2024)463 ITR 154 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Search and seizure-Procedure laid down by Digital evidence Investigation Manual by Central Board of Direct taxes-Mandatory-Search warrant defective-Search violative of Rule 112-Digital data evidence collected by the Revenue from unknown locations without any valid search warrant and without following the guidelines issued by the CBDT vide Digital Evidence Investigation Manual-Not given an opportunity of cross examine the witness-Circulars issued by the CBDT is binding on all Income tax Authorities-Assessment order is quashed.[S.119, 143(3), R.112, Art. 226]

Saravana Selvarathnam Retails (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2024] 463 ITR 523 / 298 Taxman 319/339 CTR 10 (Mad)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Person-Company-An Assessee to be assessed for income tax must be a person in existence-A company is a juridical person but the moment it is struck off from the Register of Companies and is dissolved, it ceases to exist and no assessment can be made against a dead person. [S. 2(31)(iii), 2(31(vii), 179,226(3) Companies Act, 1956, S.560(5), 560(7), Companies Act, 2013, S. 248, 250]

Rainawari Finance and Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer [2024] 463 ITR 65 /339 CTR 433 (J&K&Ladakh)(HC)

S. 80HHC : Export business-Profits-Interest earned on deposits and advances not entitled to deduction. [S.260A]

Kaushal Kishore Agarwal v. ITO (2024)463 ITR 683 (Raj)(HC)

S. 80G : Donation-Application for approval of institution-Genuineness of activities are not in doubt-Quantum of charitable activities cannot be the basis for granting approval-Order of Tribunal directing to grant the approval is affirmed. [S.80G(5). R.11AA]

CIT (E) v. Gangadeen Niranjan Lal Data Charitable Trust (2024) 463 ITR 690 (Raj)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, leaving question of law open. CIT (E) v. Gangadeen Niranjan Lal Data Charitable Trust (2024) 297 Taxman 294/463 ITR 695 (SC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction established-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition is affirmed.[S. 260A]

PCIT v. Narsingh Ispat Ltd. (2024)463 ITR 566 (Cal)(HC)

S. 68 : Cash credits-Share application money-Test of creditworthiness and genuineness failed to prove-Addition is affirmed.[S.260A]

CIT v. Mayank Service Ltd [2024] 463 ITR 119 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Non-Resident had no Permanent Establishment in India-Non-discrimination clause in Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement applicable-Disallowance is not justified-Provisions of agreement more beneficial to assessee is applicable-DTAA-India-Japan-United States of America.[S.9O, 195, art. 24(3), 26(3)]

CIT v. Mitsubishi Corporation India P. Ltd. (2024)463 ITR 335/337 CTR 889 / 159 taxmann.com 539 (Delhi)(HC)