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-Losses-Capital gains-Losses carried forward-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice must specify facts which had not been disclosed-Notice not valid-SLP is granted to the Revenue. [S.72, 143(3), 148, Art. 136]

ACIT v. Noshir Darabshaw Talati (2024) 159 taxmann.com 390/ 297 Taxman 390 (SC) Editorial : Noshir Darabshaw Talati v. ACIT (2023)459 ITR 742 /150 taxmann.com 16 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Once objections have been filed by assessee against a draft assessment order within time limit prescribed under section 144C(2)(b), final assessment order should have been passed by Assessing Officer post receipt of direction from DRP-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

Pepsico India Holdings (P.) Ltd v. NFAC (2024) 297 Taxman 76/465 ITR 622 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Objections against draft assessment order were filed-Copy of objections could not be placed before Assessing Officer-Assessment order was quashed and Assessing Officer is to be directed to await decision of DRP before issuing a fresh assessment order. [Art. 226]

PAR Formulations (P.) Ltd v. NFAC(2024) 297 Taxman 401/ 466 ITR 723 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Filed objections to proposed variation only with DRP and a copy of same was not marked to AO-Objections filed with DRP would result in directions to AO-AO must complete assessment in light of directions as envisaged under section 144C(13).[S.144C(13),Art. 226]

Google India (P.) Ltd v. NFAC (2024) 297 Taxman 26 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Passing of final order-Contrary to law-Mistake could not be cured-Notice is issued in SLP filed by the Revenue [S. 156, 292B, Art. 136]

CIT v. Cisco Systems services B.V (2024) 297 Taxman 399 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Cisco Systems services B.V. (2023) 456 ITR 50/ 293 Taxman 85/334 CTR 52 (Karn)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Opportunity of hearing-Objections are not uploaded due to technical reasons-Order is set aside-Assessing Officer is directed to pass the order after direction from DRP.[S.144C(2), Art. 226]

Renaissance Global Ltd. v. NFAC (2024) 297 Taxman 80 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Assessment order without DIN (Document identification number) has not valid in law-Statutory defects in the assessment order cannot be cured by applying the provision of section 292B of the Act-Circular No 19 of 2019 dated 14-8-209 (2019) 416 ITR 140 (St) of CBDT is binding on the Revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the assessment order was affirmed-On SLP, interim stay of order dated 20-3-2-2023 as well as order of the ITAT dated 19-9-2022, until further orders. [S. 144C, 147, 292B, Art. 136]

CIT v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 228 (SC) Editorial : CIT (IT) v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd. (2023) 456 ITR 34/ 293 Taxman 385 / 332 CTR 221/ 224 DTR 361 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Extension of time-Cannot be exercised by the Commissioner-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S.142(2A)(C), 260A]

PCIT v. B.L. Kashyap and Sons Ltd. (2024) 297 Taxman 13/ 469 ITR 504 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income-Delay in filing return-Pendency of ruling before Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR)-Genuine hardship-Delay is condoned-Directed to pay cost of Rs 50000 each petition. [S.119(2)(b), 245R(2), Art. 226]

Tiong Woon Project & Contracting Pte. Ltd. v. CBDT (2024) 297 Taxman 434 /463 ITR 641 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income-Invalid return-Condonation of delay-Central Board of Direct Taxes-Genuine hardship should be construed in a liberal manner-Delay is directed to be condoned [S. 119(2)(b), 139(9) Art. 226]

Optra Health (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (HQ) (2024) 297 Taxman 481 / 462 ITR 238/336 CTR 489 (Bom.)(HC)