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-After the expiry of four years-Cash credits-Search-Deposit of cash in bank-No scrutiny assessment was done-Reassessment notice is held to be justified.[S. 68, 143(1), 147, Art. 226]
Ramakant v. ITO (2023) 294 Taxman 48 / 333 CTR 791(Delhi)(HC)/Editorial : Review petition is dismissed , Ramakant v. ITO (2023) ( 2023) 333 CTR 786 ( Delhi)( HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose true and full material-Question was raised and reply was filed-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 14A, 142(1), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]
Sandesh Procon (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 459 ITR 453 / 294 Taxman 52 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Amalgamation-Carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation-No failure to disclose any material fact-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 72A(2), 72(3), 148, Art. 226]
Hindoostan Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 362 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Infrastructure development-Change of opinion-Pendency of appeal before CIT(A)-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed.[S. 80IA, 148,246A, Art. 226]
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 365 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Share capital-Share premium-No failure to disclose material facts-Reasons not specifying material facts which are not disclosed-Notice and order disposing the objection was quashed and set aside. [S. 68, 132, 147, Art. 226]
Rajshree Realtors (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2023) 457 ITR 354 / 294 Taxman 228 / 334 CTR 866 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Business expenditure-Penalty imposed for breach of a civil obligation would be outside purview of Explanation 1 to section 37(1)-Assessing Officer who had specifically gone into the allowability of the claim-A mere assertion in the absence of any material would not constitute a ‘tangible material’ for purposes of reopening an assessment-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 37(1), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 190 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-CSR expenditure-Prior period gain /loss-No failure to disclose material facts-Provision of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) inserted with effect from 1st April 2015 operates prospectively, from assessment year 2015-16-Reassessent notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 37 (1), 148 Art, 226, Companies Act, 2013, S. 135]
Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 558 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-Residential Status-Resident or non-resident-Service of notice on chartered Accountant-Reassessment notice was held to be valid-Interest-Levy of interest-Automatic-Working in ITNS 150 forming part of assessment order was proper-Sikkim-Commission-Burden not discharged-Round tripping of funds-Liable to tax in India-Review petition is dismissed. [S. 2(35), 5, 6(3)(ii), 131, 142(1), 143(2), 148, 234A, 282]
Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 513 (SC) Editorial : Mansarovar Commercial (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 661/ 293 Taxman 312 (SC).
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Amount payable to sundry creditors-Cessation of liability-No new information-SLP of Revenue is dismissed. [S. 41(1), 148, Art. 226]
ACIT v. Meer Gems (2023) 459 ITR 1 / 294 Taxman 606 (SC) Editorial : Refer, Meer Gems v. ACIT (2022) 446 ITR 754/ 287 Taxman 689 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 145 : Method of accounting-Deduction of tax at source-Tax deducted is income received-Running bills-AO was not justified in making addition on account of difference in payment received as per Form 26AS and books of accounts without verifying total contract amount and relevant bills. [S. 198, Form No. 26AS]
PCIT.v. MBC Infra Space (P.) Ltd (2023) 294 Taxman 358) (Guj)(HC)