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-Assessment of third person-Authorised Officer conducting search to hand over seized documents relating to third person to Assessing Officer having jurisdiction within fifteen days of seizure-Assessing Officer seeking instructions from superior authority and not exercising independent judgment on facts-Reassessment proceedings and assessment order passed by Assessing Officer at dictation of higher authorities-Null and void-Rule of law. [S. 132(9A), 132A(3), 147, 148, 153C, 260A]

Dy. CIT (Assessment) v. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) (2025) 472 ITR 346 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Unexplained investment-Assessment cannot be opened twice for the same reason-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed and set aside. [S. 69, 148, Art.226]

Sarika Kansal v. ACIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 545 /303 Taxman 636 (Delhi)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest on borrowed funds-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment proceedings is quashed and set aside.[S. 36(1)(iii), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Imperial Consultants and Securities Ltd v. DCIT (2025) 473 ITR 217 (Bom.) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Audit objection-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 57, 143(3), 147, Art. 226]

Shrenik Kumar N. Baldota v. DCIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 181/ 473 ITR 195 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Material facts not considered-When the assessee’s objections to alleged foreign receipts are not adequately considered by the revenue authorities in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a remand to the Assessing Officer with directions. [S. 133(6), 148, Art. 226]

Deloitte Haskins and Sells v. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 337 (Guj.) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Sanction should be given only after due application of mind-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, 151, Art. 226]

Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 205 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Not following mandatory requirements of section 144C(2)-Assessment Order cannot be treated as draft Assessment Order-Proceedings before DRP and Tribunal bad in law-Not curable defect-Defect cannot be cured by issuing corrigendum-Assessment order is void. [S. 144C(1), 292BB]

Lason India Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 263 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Despatch-When electronic records enters portal or computer resource it is treated to be receipt by recipient Assessing Officer or concerned authority-The Assessment Orders were passed beyond the period of one month of receipt of directions by DRP, being barred by limitation, is set aside. [S. 144C(5), 144C (13),Information Technology Act, 2000, S. 2(k),13(1), Art. 226]

Rapiscan Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (IT) (2025) 473 ITR 485 (Telangana) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Remand by Tribunal-Scrutiny assessment with certain disallowance u/s 14A-Remand by the Tribunal on the issues to JAO-The order giving effect to the ITAT’s directions passed by the JAO-The jurisdiction assumed subsequently by the NFAC on completed assessment by the JAO without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. [S. 14A, 143(3), 147, 148, 254(1), Art. 226]

Religare Enterprises Ltd. v. NFAC (2025) 172 taxmann.com 200 / 472 ITR 329 (Delhi)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Ex parte order-Service of notice to an unregistered email address-Violation of principles of natural justice-Assessment order, demand notice and penalty notices are quashed and set aside-Department has given liberty to issue fresh notices if necessary in accordance with law. [S. 143(2),282, Art. 226]

Neha Bhawsingka v. UOI (2024) 169 taxmann.com 669 /(2025) 472 ITR 335 (Cal)(HC)