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. 153A: Assessment-Search-Satisfaction note-No incriminating document-Loose sheets-Unaccounted cash-Incriminating material for each year is mandatory-Addition is deleted. [S. 69C , 132 (4), 153D]

Dy. CIT v. T. S. Kumarasamy (2023)106 ITR 18 (SN) (Chennai) (Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-No incriminating material found-Dumb document-Statement in the course of search is not incriminating document-Third party statement-Statement to be construed as a whole-Cash credits-Burden shift on the assessee only when incriminating material is found-Deletion of addition by CIT(A) is affirmed . [ S.68 , 699C ,132(4) , 143(3), 292C ]

Manoj Madanlal Chhajed v. Asst. CIT (2023)106 ITR 594 Pune) (Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Assessment completed or in respect of which time for issue of notice has expired-Assessment does not abate-No incriminating material is found-Statements taken during survey prior to search operations cannot be used as evidence-Additions is not sustainable. [S. 132, 133A, 143(2)]

Arshiya Ltd. v Dy. CIT (2023)106 ITR 106 (SN) (Mum) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Limited scrutiny on issue of cash deposits-Enquiries made and detailed replies filed-No assessment order passed-Assessment time-barred-Reassessment on same issue impermissible and without jurisdiction-Proceedings quashed .[ S. 69A, 143(2) , 143(3. 148 , 153 ]

Venkateswara Rao v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2023)106 ITR 531 (Hyd) (Trib)

S. 147: Reassessment-Survey Borrowed satisfaction-Reasons recorded on wrong facts without application of mind-Reassessment is bad in law . [ S. 133A, 148(2) ]

Ashika Stock Broking Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)106 ITR 95 (SN) (Kol) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Transactions on stock exchange-Client code modification-Fictitious losses-Name of broker facilitating client code modification not mentioned in reasons recorded-Reassessment is quashed. [S. 148]

Captive Commerce P. Ltd. v Asst. CIT (2023)106 ITR 49 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Builder-Rule of consistency followed-Percentage of completion method-Accounting Standard Guidance note not notified by Central Government-Assessing Officer not right in recomputing profitability of Assessee. [ S. 145(2) ]

Dy. CIT v. Dwarkhadhis Buildwell P. Ltd. (2023)106 ITR 64 (SN)(Delhi) (Trib)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Limitation-Company amalgamated with assessee and ceasing to exist-Fact of amalgamation intimated to department-Order of Transfer Pricing Officer and draft assessment order issued in name of non-existing company-Invalid-Directions of Dispute Resolution Panel and final assessment passed in name of assessee-Not valid-Assessee ceasing to be eligible assessee and reduced time-limit for assessment-Assessment is barred by limitation .[ S.92CA (3)

Emerson Process Management (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023)106 ITR 14 (SN)/ 154 taxmann.com 291 (Mum)(Trib )

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Transfer pricing-Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer-Arm’s Length price-Avoidance of tax-Remand order-Order passed by Assessing Officer giving effect to order of Dispute Resolution Panel without understanding Tribunal’s order-Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. [S. 92CA]

CET Power Solutions India P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)106 ITR 68 (SN)/ 153 taxmann.com 553 (Chennai ) (Trib)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-International Transactions-Arm’s Length Price-Limitation-Period of sixty days to be counted from day prior to date on which period of limitation for assessment expires-Order barred by limitation-Order non est-Ceased to be eligible assessee-Draft assessment order, directions of Dispute Resolution Panel and final asessment order void ab initio-Tribunal has the power to admit additional ground on limitation . [ S.92CA(3) 153 , 254(1) ]

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2023) 106 ITR 81 (Mum) (Trib)