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-Transfer-Capital gains-Development rights-Neither any tangible material nor any reason for Assessing Officer to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 2(47)(v) 148, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, S.53A Art. 136]

Dy. CIT v. Bharat Jayantilal Patel (2024) 296 Taxman 247/ 462 ITR 455 (SC) Editorial: Bharat Jayantilal Patel v.Dy.CIT (2023) 292 Taxman 276 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Opportunity of hearing-No notice was issued-PAN database no e-mail id was registered-Notice should have been served physically upon assessee at least by courier or speed post and acknowledgment filed as was also mentioned in SOP issued by CBDT for assessment units under faceless assessment-Revenue was to be directed to strictly comply with SOP in all cases, not just restricted to faceless assessment proceedings Reassessment and notice is quashed and set aside-Matter remanded for de novo consideration.[S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Fayeza Muffadal Contractor v. NFAC (2024) 296 Taxman 164 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Penalty-Tax in default-Covid 19-Notices were issued to the registered e-mail of assessee which was operated and accessed only by the Chartered Accountant-Matter was remanded to department to pass a fresh order.[S. 142(1), 221, Art. 226]

VKCN Realties LLP v. NFAC (2024) 296 Taxman 442 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Search and seizure-Undisclosed profit-Loose papers and other documents-Failure to examine the Chartered Accountant-Matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration. [S. 132, 132(4A), 292C]

CIT (Central) v. Ashok Kumar Poddar (2024) 296 Taxman 171/463 ITR 739 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Sufficient opportunity was afforded to assessee before sanction was granted for special audit-Writ petition is dismissed. [Art. 226]

Jabalpur Development Authority v. PCIT (2024) 296 Taxman 220 (MP)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-Comparable-Functional similarity-Company engaged in marketing research and management activity was comparable to assessee-company, investment advisory services provider. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. Warburg Pincus India (P.) Ltd (2024) 296 Taxman 161 (Bom)(HC)

S. 90 : Double taxation relief-Foreign tax credit (FTC)-Form-67 filed before completion of assessment and after due date specified for furnishing return under section. 139(1)-Rejection of FTC is not justified-DTAA-India-Australia [S. 91, 139(1), 143(1), Rule 128, Form-67 Art. 24, Art. 226]

Duraiswamy Kumaraswamy v. PCIT (2024) 296 Taxman 502/ 460 ITR 615 / 336 CTR 108(Mad.)(HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Mode of Computation-Sale of shares gifted by promoters-BIFR cannot sanction any modification to scheme directing the Income tax department to give further tax concession without department being consenting to grant additional concession-SLP is granted against the order of High Court. [S. 45, Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, 3(1)(o), 17, 18, 22A, Art. 136]

Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. PDGIT (2024) 296 Taxman 576 (SC) Editorial : Refer, PDGIT v. Indian Plywood Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd [2023] 153 taxmann.com 416 / [2023] 240 COMP CASE 282 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 44BB : Mineral oils-Computation-Presumptive tax — Non-resident-Service tax collected-Not includible in gross receipt-SLP of Revenue is dismissed [S.44BB(2)]

CIT v. Vantage International Management Co. (2024) 296 Taxman 160 (SC) Editorial : Refer, CIT (IT) v. B.J. Services Co.Me Ltd (2022) 145 taxmann.com 430/ (2023) 457 ITR 80 (Uttarkhand)(HC)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Hotel-renovation, refurbishment and repairs-Consultancy payments-Allowable as revenue expenditure.[S.28((i)]

Asian Hotels Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 296 Taxman 69 (Delhi)(HC)