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-Reasons recorded-Factual misstatements and inaccuracies-Sanction of commissioner without proper application of mind-Dispute Resolution Panel-Admitting errors-Reassessment is bad in law.[S.144C, 148, 151]

Cricket South Africa (NPC) v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2023)107 ITR 93 (SN)/226 TTJ 936 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Settlement Of Case-Settlement Commission passing order settling case-Binding on department-Assessing Officer has no power to reopen assessment for year forming part of Settlement-Recovery of tax-Companies-Insolvency resolution-Resolution plan as approved by committee of creditors approved by National Company Law Tribunal-Binding on all Parties-Dues not forming part of resolution plan stand extinguished-Department has no power to reopen assessment [S.148, 245C(1), 245D(4)]

Asst. CIT v. Pradip Overseas Ltd. (2023)107 ITR 60 (SN) (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Reasons recorded-No addition is made on the basis of recorded reasons-Addition is made on other grounds which are not part of the recorded reasons-Reassessment is quashed.[S. 148]

Bharti Singh (Smt.) v. Asst. CIT (2023)107 ITR 26 (SN)(Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Borrowed satisfaction-Contrary to facts-All information was available while passing the original assessment order-Approval without application of mind-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 132, 133A, 148, 151, 153A, 153C]

Evershine Recreation P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 65 (SN)(Chd) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Borrowed satisfaction-Reassessment is not valid-Approval is not valid [S. 132, 133A,148, 151, 153A, 153C]

Evershine Recreation P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 65 (SN) (Chd.)(Trib.)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Assessment-Limitation-Draft assessment order-Objections a day late-And Dispute Resolution Panel dismissing objections as filed late-Assessing Officer is bound to complete assessment within a month from last date for filing objections-Order passed beyond that date ultra vires.[S.143(3)]

Dilipkumar Jashbai Patel v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2023)107 ITR 79 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Amalgamation-Intimation to Department with the copy of order approving merger-Order passed in name of non-existent entity void and set aside.

Rahil Marketing P. Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 48 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Entries in the books of account-Sale of land-Entries in books is not conclusive-Right income should be taxed in right hands, under right head of income in right year of assessment-Addition as undisclosed income is deleted. [S. 4, 69, 133(6), 145]

Economical Credit and Construction Co. P. Ltd. v. ITO (2023)107 ITR 51 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Unaccounted expenditure and receipts-Only profit element in unaccounted business receipts and net result of unaccounted receipts and expenditure could be brought to tax-Assessment made substantively in hands of company-Protective addition in hands of director is deleted-Certificate from Gram Panchayat secondary evidence-Primary Evidence of crops, income and expenses unavailable-Fifty Per Cent. treated as agricultural income-Balance treated as income from other sources-Cash available in hands of group-Set off to be permitted-If sufficient cash available after set off and adjustments-No addition is permissible-Depreciation-Value of addition to block-Addition of differential depreciation is deleted. [S. 5, 10(1), 32 56, 69]

Pravinchandra R. Patel v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 34 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib) Ansuben P.Patel (Smt) v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 34 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Search-Income from undisclosed sources-Jewellery discovered in search-Assessing Officer cannot make separate addition over and above excess identified in search-Rate of tax-Penalties-Levy of tax under section 115BBE not in accordance with law. [S. 5, 69, 115BBE, 132, 132(4), 271AABB, 271AAC]

Sandeep Sethi v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 311 /223 TTJ 294 / 226 DTR 148 (Jaipur) (Trib) Rajiv Nigotiya v. Dy. CIT (2023)107 ITR 311 /223 TTJ 294 / 226 DTR 148 (Jaipur) (Trib)