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. 153 : Assessment-Limitation-Failure to pass the order within six months from the date of communication of the Tribunal order-Appellate Tribunal restored the matter to the file of AO with directions to comply with the same within 6 months-Assessment order passed beyond the stipulated timeline provided by the ITAT is barred by limitation.[S.153(3), 254(1) Art.226, 265]
Ramesh Chawla (HUF) v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 44 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Mere use of expression Yes I am satisfied could not be considered to be a valid approval-Non application of mind-Reassessment notice is quashed. [S.143(1), 147, 148, Art. 226]
Capital Broadways (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 506 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice –Recording of satisfaction-No mandate for the Pr. CIT to record his own reasons for approval or satisfaction-It would be sufficed that the Pr. CIT recorded the satisfaction regarding the reasons recorded by the AO-Writ petition is dismissed.[S. 148, Art.226]
Venky Steels (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 301 Taxman 344 (Patna)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice under section. 148A(b) is issued in the name of dead person-Notice and order is quashed-Even otherwise, since tax had already been deducted on salary income, as was evident from Form-16, reassessment action leading to demand of tax could not be initiated against assessee or even his legal representatives is not valid. [S. 15, 148, 148A(b), 1488A(d), 192, Form No 16, Art. 226]
Meenu Gupta v. Asstt. CIT (2024) 301 Taxman 421 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless assessment-Notice issue by jurisdictional AO and not by faceless AO-Bad in law hence quashed.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226]
Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 301 Taxman 20 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Limitation-Assessee had not initiated any legal proceedings to assail the notice dated 30.06.2021 issued under section 148-Subsequent notice issued under section 148A(b) pursuant to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in UOI v Ashish Agarwal (2022) 286 Taxman 183/ 444 ITR 1 (SC) is barred by limitation. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d) 149, Art. 226]
Genpat India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT, OSD (2024) 301 Taxman 126 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A: Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice under section 148-decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC) does not mandate reopening of completed assessment.[S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Satish Chand Jain v. ACIT (2024) 301 Taxman 27 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Before passing order under S. 148A(d) the Officer ought to give a personal hearing if requested for by the assessee-Grant of approval by PCIT without application of mind to the form of approval-Order and notice liable to be set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d),149(1)(b), 151 Art. 226].
Nikhil Chandrakant Dharia v. ITO [2024] 469 ITR 262 /151 taxmann.com 117 (Bom) (HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice issued by JAO in defiance of section 144B is bad in law. [S. 144B(7), 144B(8)_, 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]
Bharatiya Spinners v. UOI (2024) 301 Taxman 82 (P&H)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Non-resident-Term deposits out of remittances from Dubai-Assessing Officer Vijayanagram had jurisdiction over assessee, notice issued by Assessing Officer, Vapi is in valid-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S.10(4)(ii), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Anand Kumar Dugar v. ITO (2024) 301 Taxman 116 (Guj.)(HC)