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. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice Principle of Natural Justice – Non-Application of Mind by Authorities- Role of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) – Approval under Section 151- Strictures -Interplay Between CGST Act and Income Tax Act- Costs and Accountability of Tax Authorities- The High Court held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was invalid as it was based on mechanical approval and a lack of due diligence by the tax authorities- Imposed personal costs of ₹25,000 each on the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, payable to the National Association for the Blind, Mumbai for arbitrary and unjustified actions serves as a deterrent against abuse of authority and reinforces accountability in the exercise of statutory powers- Directed the Ministry to scrutinize the conduct of the involved officers for accountability. [S. 148 , 148A(b) 148A(d), 151 , Art. 226 ]

C.C. Dangi & Associates v. UOI ( Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org .

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment -Additional legal ground is admitted -Not specifying the charge – Levy of penalty is not valid – Substantial question of law is admitted before High Court – Penalty cannot be levied- The decision in Veena Estate P.Ltd v. CIT( 2024) 464 ITR 483 ( Bom)( HC) is distinguished . [ S. 68, 69, 260A, 274 ]

Amrish Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org Bhavya Manoj Dhupalia ( Ms) v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org Mohan Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT ( Mum)( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 32: Depreciation – Car registered in name of director – Funds utilized of the company – Depreciation is allowable to the company.

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited v. DCIT (Ahd)(Trib)(UR)

S. 272A : Penalty – Failure to answer questions – Sign statements – Furnish information – Substantial compliance – Levy of penalty is not justified. [S. 143(3), 272A(1)(d)]

Pawan International v. ITO (Chd)(Trib) (UR)

S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty – Concealment – Bogus purchases – Estimated addition – Levy of penalty is not valid.[S.69A]

ITO v. Saraswati Wire And Cable Industries (Mum)( Trib)(UR)

S. 263: Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue – Assessment order passed after making necessary inquiries – Held, revision proceedings cannot be initiated simply because PCIT was of the opinion that further inquiries should have been made on the issue.[ S.143(3) ]

Venerable Advertising P. Ltd. v. PCIT [2024] 109 ITR 81 (SN.) (Kol) (Trib) Editorial: Amritrashi Infra (P) Ltd. v. PR. CIT in ITA No 838/Kol/2019; Assessment Year 2012-13; order dt. 12/08/2020; Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.) (Trib.) Followed.

S. 251 : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Powers – Appeal cannot be dismissed on account of non-prosecution- Order is set aside and directed to decide on merits. [S. 246A, 251(2)]

Pramod Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (Raipur)(Trib) (UR)

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – Beyond three years – Specified Authority – Sanction by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Reassessment notice and order is bad in law.[S.148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii)]

Parinee Housing Pvt. Ltd v. Dy. CIT (Mum)(Trib)(UR)

S. 69A : Unexplained moneys – Demonetization – Not taxable as undisclosed income – Best judgement assessment – Order under section 144 is not valid.[S. 115BBE, 144]

Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala v. ITO [2024] 163 taxmann.com 115 (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 69A: Unexplained moneys – Search – Cash seized during search – Explained the source of cash – Addition is deleted. [S. 132]

Hemant Samarataji Lohar v. CIT(A) [2024] 163 taxmann.com 292 (SMC) (Mum)(Trib)