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-With in four years-Advancing loan to sister concern from borrowed capital without interest-Loan was advanced out of commercial expediency-Reopening of assessment on the ground that interest claimed on borrowed capital is not allowable and hence, escaped assessment-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 36(1)(iii), 148, Art. 226]
Vaman Prestressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2023) 295 Taxman 252 / (2024) 461 ITR 192 (Bom)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Compensation-Business expenditure-No new tangible material-Assessee had filed reply during original assessment proceedings-twin conditions-New tangible material and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts truly and fully, does not exist-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art. 226]
Ratnabhumi Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) 296 Taxman 364 (Guj)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Reopening of assessment on the basis of decision of court that approval not obtained from competent authority-not a case of income escaping assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts during the course of assessment-reopening unjustified.[S.10B, 148, Art. 226]
Digital Mesh Softech India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 223 (Ker)(HC)/U.S.Technology International Pvt Ltd v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 223 (Ker)(HC)
S. 147:Reassessmet-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion cannot be a reason to reopen the assessment.[S. 35D, 148, Art. 226]
Palco Recycle Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 296 Taxman 44 (Guj.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Money transferred to assessee’s bank account from cash deposits in other persons bank account-Borrowed Satisfaction-Mere increase in funds from previous year-No Tangible material on record-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 148, Art. 226]
Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 296 Taxman 260 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Capital Gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp Duty Valuation-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S.45, 50C, 148, Art. 226]
Pfizer Ltd v. UOI (2024) 296 Taxman 2(Bom)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Direction of Audit party-Amalgamation-AO issued notice on the ground of directions issued by the audit party-Being not on AO’s personal satisfaction, reopening of assessment without any basis, merely on change of opinion and not permissible in law-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 72A(4), 148, Art. 226
Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 228 (2024) 460 ITR 345 (Bom)(HC)
S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. (2(22)(e), 147, 148, Art. 226]
Noshir Darabshaw Talati v. Dy. CIT (2024) 296 Taxman 133 / 462 ITR 37 (Bom)(HC)
S. 144B: Face less assessment-Reassessment-Principle of natural justice-Technical glitch-Order is set aside.[S. 147, 148, Art.226]
Kumarbhai Manharlal Desai v. ACIT (2024) 296 Taxman 12(Guj)(HC)
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Video Conferencing not granted by the Assessing Officer-Grave abrogation of jus naturale-impugned assessment order is set aside.[S. 144B(6) (viii), 147, 148, Art. 226]
Shashi Bala Sharma v. ITO (2024) 296 Taxman 446 (Delhi)(HC)