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. 143(3) : Assessment-Principle of natural justice —Strictures-Assessment order passed without granting or rejecting adjournment request-Systemic deficiencies in faceless assessment and portal functioning resulting in violation of rule of law-Assessment, penalty and demand orders quashed-Work Domain-Directions issued to strengthen tax administration and ensure compliance with Court orders-Costs were imposed on the Department. [S 156, 270A, Art. 226, 265]
Shree Sarkhej Kelavani Mandal v. ADCIT (2025) 345 CTR 807 / 252 DTR 222 (Guj)(HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Principles of natural justice-Opportunity of being heard-Notices sent to email address available on MCA website-Assessee having participated in assessment proceedings precluded from objecting to service of notice-No violation of natural justice-Writ petition dismissed. [S. 142(1), 282, 292BB, R. 127(2)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, Art. 226]
Kalkajee Kraft Paper (P) Ltd. v. AUITD (2025) 345 CTR 793 / 305 Taxman 261 (Delhi)(HC).
S. 143(3): Assessment-Notice under S. 143(2) issued by ITO lacking pecuniary jurisdiction-Assessee participated in proceedings before Dy. CIT without objection-Objection raised for first time before Tribunal barred by S. 292BB-Tribunal erred in quashing assessment-Matter remanded. [S. 143(2), 254(1), 260A, 292B, 292BB]
CIT v. Shankar Lall Goenka (2025) 481 ITR 690 / 305 Taxman 16 / 345 CTR 75 / 250 DTR 305 (Gauhati)(HC)
S. 132A : Powers-Requisition of books of account, etc.-Assets in custody of Police-Criminal case-Stolen property seized by police-Department cannot claim possession by issuing notice under s. 132A-Separate proceeding can be initiated only after decision of Court. [CrPC, 1973, Ss. 397, 401, 457]
Shravan Kumar Pathak v. State of M.P. (2025) 345 CTR 433 / 251 DTR 377 / 175 taxmann.com 894 (MP)(HC).
S. 132: Search and seizure-Authorisation-“Reason to believe”-Satisfaction not perverse-Search action valid-Prohibitory order under S. 132(3) ceases after 60 days by virtue of S. 132(8A). [S. 132(3), 132(8A), Art. 226]
M.M. Varghese v. ACIT (Inv.) (2025) 345 CTR 86 / 250 DTR 201 (Ker.)(HC)
S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Revocation of transfer order during pendency of writ and finalisation of assessments-Volte-face without reasons-Strictures passed-CBDT and Ministry of Finance directed to conduct enquiry. [S. 119, 127(2), Art. 226]
52 Weeks Entertainment Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 615 / 345 CTR 233 / 250 DTR 401 (Bom)(HC)
S. 119 : Return-Condonation of delay-Genuine hardship-Clerical error in ITR-Incorrect ticking of audit information column resulting in rejection of return as invalid-Delay in filing revised return to cure defect to be condoned.[S. 44AB, 119(2)(b), 139, Art. 226]
Nikon Finlease (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 175 taxmann.com 867 / 345 CTR 859 / 251 DTR 161 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 115JB : Company-Book profit-Interest under S. 234B-Binding precedent of Co-ordinate Benches-Revenue bound to disclose contrary judgments-Allegation that earlier judgments were “obtained” deprecated-The duty of fairness expected from the Revenue, the Court observed that binding precedents should not be suppressed or casually attacked-Appeal dismissed. [Ss. 234B, 260A]
CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2025) 345 CTR 747 / 252 DTR 65 (Bom)(HC)
S. 115BAA : Tax on income of certain domestic companies-Exercise of option-Revised return-Non-filing of Form 10-IC-CBDT Circular condoning delay does not relax requirement of exercising option in return filed under S. 139(1)-Assessee having expressly stated “none of above” not eligible-Writ dismissed [S. 115BA, 115BAB, 139(1), Art. 226, Form 10-IC]
Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025) 345 CTR 129 / 179 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, Sarla Holdings (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2025)307 Taxman 446 (SC)
S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Most appropriate method-TNMM consistently accepted in earlier years-Rejection without reasons-Invocation of “any other method” under Rule 10AB not justified-Assessee’s PLI higher than mean PLI of comparables-No substantial question of law [S. 260A, R. 10AB]
PCIT v. Sabic India (P) Ltd. (2025) 345 CTR 104 / 250 DTR 176 (Delhi)(HC)