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. 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)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principles of natural justice-At least 21 days time should be given to file reply-Legislative Intent is to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any orders, which are prejudicial to their rights/interests-It is bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order, providing reasons for rejection of the contention of the assessee-Matter restored to the file of the AO as the assessee was granted time of 5 days only without referring to opportunity of personal hearing.[Art. 226]

Gemini Film Circuit v. NFAC, Delhi. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 445 (2024) 461 ITR 13 (Mad)(HC)

S.144B: Faceless assessment-Assessment order passed without issuing draft assessment order, matter remitted to pass a fresh order per law.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Devendran Coal International (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC (2024) 296 Taxman 417 (Mad)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Principles of natural justice-Cross examination not granted by the Assessing Officer-Order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment was upheld by the High Court. [S. 260A]

PCIT v. DSG Papers P. Ltd. (2024)461 ITR 4 (P&H)(HC) Editorial: Relied on Andaman Timber Industries v CCE [2015 81 CTR (SC) 241/ 38 GSTR 117 (SC), CIT v Rajesh Kumar [2008 306 ITR 27 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Assessment order passed in spite of valid objections pending before DRP is bad in law.[S.144C, Art. 226]

Convergys India Services v. NFAC (2024) 461 ITR 88 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Limited scrutiny-Issue decided by AO with respect to carry forward of losses was not part of limited scrutiny for which assessment was directed to be scrutinised, since AO did not abide by Instruction No. 5/2016, dated 14-07-2016 and exceeded his jurisdiction, disallowance made with respect to carry forward of losses was to be deleted.[S. 72, 260A]

PCIT v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd (2023) 155 taxmann.com 580 /(2024) 296 Taxman 205 / 463 ITR 89(Cal)(HC)

S. 143(2): Assessment-Notice-Defective return-Date of filing of original return under section 139(1) was to be considered for purpose of computing period of limitation under sections 143(2) and 142(1), and not date on which defects actually came to be removed under section 139(9)-Notice is quashed. [S. 143(2), 139(1), 139(9)

SMC Comtrade Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 296 Taxman 214 / 336 CTR 609(Delhi) (HC)

S.142 (2A): Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Limitation-Power to extend time limit for submitting audit report lies with the assessing officer and not the Commissioner-Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. [S. 132 142(2C), 153A, 153B, 260A]

PCIT(Central) v. Soul Space Projects Ltd (2023) 157 taxmann.com 272/ (2024) 460 ITR 642 /336 CTR 282 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure-No incriminating material found during the course of search action-Completed assessment cannot be reopened.[S. 153A, 260A]

Shyam Sunder Jindal v. Asst. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 96 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Instructions-Extension of time for filing of return-Seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income-Principal CCIT should have taken lenient view in considering difficulties faced by assessee-due to Covid-19.[S.119(2)(a), 139, Art.226]

Patna Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 150 taxmann.com 434 / 333 CTR 557 (2024) 460 ITR 731 (Patna)(HC)