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-Sanction for notice issued by Income-Tax Authority which did not have jurisdiction-Notice is not Valid.[S. 147, 148, 151, Art.226]

Ashok Kumar Makhija v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 283 /162 taxmann.com 514 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Time granted to respond to notice lesser than prescribed seven days-Opportunity of personal hearing not granted-Notices and order set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b). 148A(d),151A Art. 226]

Anup Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 494 /300 Taxman 321 (Cal)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Non-Resident-Permanent Establishment-Transactions found to be at arm’s length-Supplying materials through direct imports to Indian Railways-Allegation of wholly owned subsidiary-No material to prove conclusively that Indian Subsidiary’s place assessee’s Permanent Establishment falling in any of three Categories. Petition is allowed. Liberty is given to Department to independently examine whether Delhi Office of assessee a Permanent Establishment or service Permanent Establishment-DTAA-India-USA. [S.92CA, 133A, 148, Art.5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 5(4)]

Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2024)466 ITR 76 / 339 CTR 129/163 taxmann.com 52(Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Effect of third proviso to Section 147-Income which was the subject matter of appeal-Notice Of Reassessment In Respect Of Such Income Not Valid. [S.80IB(10), 148, 250, Art. 226]

Poonam Builders v. ACIT (2024)466 ITR 186/162 taxmann.com 238 /(2025) 342 CTR 254(Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Financial cost-Interest-Tax deducted at source-Query was raised in the course of original assessment proceedings-Reassessment notice on same issue is not valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Geopreneur Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 640 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Sale consideration-Division of income between spouses and not assets for capital gains-Portuguese Civil Code-Notice based on wrong facts and erroneous reasons-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S.5A, 50C, 133A, 148, Art. 226]

Sunita Purushottam Virgincar (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 238/164 taxmann.com 352 (Bom)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Survey-Excess-stock-Surrender-Reflected in sales and closing stock-Accounting treatment is held to be proper-Investment in excess stocks to be taxed as part of business income and not as income from other sources. Proper-Accrual-Notional interest-Lower interest charged from wife of one of partners-Commercial expediency-Notional addition is not justified-Partners were paid interest at 12 Per Cent. and balance in partners’ account much more than amount advanced to wife of partner-Disallowance is to be restricted at 2 Per Cent.[S. 4, 5,,28(i), 69, 133A]

PCIT v. Bajargan Traders [2017] 86 taxmann.com 295 / (2024) 466 ITR 397 (Raj)(HC)

S. 144BA : Reference to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in certain cases-Avoidance of tax-Applicability of Chapter X-A-Multiple share transactions indicating intention to avoid tax-Burden of proof on assessee to prove contrary —Evidence that share transactions not qualifying as permissible under tax laws-Chapter X-A is applicable. [S. 95 to 102, Art. 226]

Ayodhya Rami Reddy v.PCIT (2024)466 ITR 497 / 339 CTR 497 /163 taxmann.com 277 (Telangana)(HC) Oxford Ayyappa Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)466 ITR 497 / 339 CTR 497 /163 taxmann.com 277 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Alternative remedy-Assessment order is set aside. [143(3), 144B(6)(viii), Art. 226]

Sitaram Shyam Sundar Fashions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 231/300 Taxman 142 (Cal)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Proposed variation in income-Standard operating procedure-Order shall not be passed prior to expiry of seven days from date of issuance of show-cause-Violation of principles of natural justice-Assessment order and consequential notices of demand and penalty set aside-Matter remanded. [142(1), 143(3), 144B(6)(vii), 156, 272A(1)(d), 274, Art.226]

Monika Jaiswal v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 488/300 taxman 206 (Cal)(HC)