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-Transfer cases from Chandigarh to New Delhi-Transfer of case to new Delhi-Notice issued by the Assessing Officer who had no jurisdiction-Order of Transfer come in to effect immediately-Notice was quashed-Existence of alternative remedy is not absolute bar. [S. 127(2), 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]

Ashok Kumar Sharma v. PCIT (2023) 458 ITR 54 / 294 Taxman 499 (HP)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Purchases from parties-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order set aside and matter remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer at the stage of show cause notice. [S. 148A(b), 148(d), Art. 226]

Pramod Kumar Madhogarhia v. UOI (2023) 456 ITR 21 / 294 Taxman 291 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained money-Search-Finacial scam-Principal CIT was directed to refer the case along with all other involving same broker where similar modus operandi was adopted relating to unaccounted cash loan to Enforcement Directorate (ED).[S. 69A, 132, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art.226]

Kalicharan Agarwalla v. Office of The Income-tax Officer (2023) 294 Taxman 295 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Principle of natural justice-Opportunity must be given-Order passed without considering the objection raised under the earlier unamended provisions of section 148 of the Act-Order is set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Sahil Infra Creative (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (2023) 455 ITR 11 / 294 Taxman 113 (Guj)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Notice issued was without application of mind-Order and notice was quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to revenue to consider matter afresh. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

J.P. Morgan Chase Holdings LLC v. ACIT (2023) 294 Taxman 245/(2024) 462 ITR 108 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Notice issued on the issue of unexplained investment-Order passed on other issues without issuing an opportunity to explain-Assessing Officer was directed to pass order afresh after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to assessee-Matter remanded.[S.69, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Packirisamy Senthilkumar v. Government of India. (2023) 294 Taxman 546/(2024) 461 ITR 473 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Purchase of property-Assessing Officer assumed it sale of an immoveable property-Capital gains-Order and consequential notice were set aside order and consequential notice were set aside. [S.69, 133(6), 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Krishna Diagnostic (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 294 Taxman 109 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Share application money-Order passed without considering the reply-Order is set aside-Matter is remanded. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Flipkart (P.) Ltd. v. ITO(IT) (2023) 294 Taxman 300 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Cash credits-No opportunity of hearing was given-Order and reassessment notice was quashed and set aside.[S. 68, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Movish Realtech (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 353/(2024) 460 ITR 334 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice after three years – Limitation-Capital gains-Notice issued without considering the reply-Income escaping did not exceed 50 lakhs-Income chargeable to tax-notice barred by limitation. [S. 45, 48, 148A(b) 148(d), 149(1)(b) Art. 226]

Sanath Kumar Murali v. ITO (2023) 455 ITR 370 / 294 Taxman 80 / 333 CTR 189 (Karn.)(HC)