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

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 .

S.50: Punishment for failure to furnish return of income –Information about an asset – located outside India – Punishment for wilful attempt to evade tax – Foreign asset – Prosecution – Pendency of appeal before CIT(A) – Criminal provision of sections 50 and 51 could not have a retrospective effect – Stay of criminal proceedings- Notice was issued to Advocate General regarding petition filed by petitioner and stay granted earlier to be extended till next date of hearing . [ S. 51 , Income -tax Act , 1961 , S.276C , Art . 226 ]

Anil Dhirajlal Ambani v. UOI (2023) 292 Taxman 17 (Bom.)(HC)

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 .

S. 41 :Penalty in relation to undisclosed foreign income and asset – Penalty for failure to furnish in return of income, an information or furnish inaccurate particulars about an asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India -Pendency of appeal – Directed to hear the assessee and pass the order after considering the submission of the assessee . [ S. 15, 42 , 43 , Art. 226 ]

Periyasamy Ramesh Rajah v. Addl. CIT (2023) 459 ITR 381/ 292 Taxman 551 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 40(a)(i) : Amounts not deductible – Deduction at source -Non-resident – Reimbursement of mobilisation and demobilisation costs to a foreign company – Subsequently the foreign company was held liable to tax in India – Not liable to deduct tax at source – Cannot be treated as assessee -in -default – DTAA -India – Netherlands .[ S. 9(1)(vi), 195, Art. 12, Art. 136 ]

Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT ( 2023) 453 ITR 214 / 292 Taxman 405/ 226 DTR 89 / 332 CTR 310(SC) Editorial : Van Oord ACZ India (P) Ltd v. CIT ( 2010) 323 ITR 130/ 189 Taxman 232 ( Delhi)( HC) , para 4 is set aside .

Goods and Service Tax, Act , 2017
Website – Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal – Court directed the State Government to take required steps expeditiously on or before 31st “December .2023 – Government has complied with the direction of the Court – The website has became operational -The Government has filed compliance report dt. 25 th April , 2024 – Writ petition is disposed . [ S. 109 to 116 , Art. 226 ]

Ascendas IT Park (Pune ) Pvt Ltd v .State of Maharashtra and Ors (Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org .

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Where the alleged escaped income is below the prescribed monetary threshold of Rs.50 lakhs, the period of limitation as stipulated under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the 1961 Act would be applicable- The period prescribed under the said Clause is three (03) years from the end of the relevant assessment year – Reopening notices dated 30.6.2021 and 28.06.2021 issued were held to be barred by limitation . [ S. 148 , 148A(b) , 148A(d), 149(1))(a) , Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3 , Art .142 , 226 ]

Ganesh Dass Khanna v. ITO (2023) 156 taxmann.com 417 (Delhi )( HC)

S. 250: Appeals – Commissioner of ( Appeals ) – National Faceless Appeal Centre ( NFAC) -Pendency of appeals – Delay in disposal of appeals – Honourable court has directed the government to take appropriate measures to fill up all vacant posts and also increase the sanctioned strength of Commissioner (Appeals) so as to achieve the target at least 570 of such posts . [S. 246, 250(6A), Art . 226 ]

All India Federation of Tax Practioners v .UOI ( Delhi)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 254(1): Appellate Tribunal- Powers- Ex -parte order – Search – Alleged Accommodation entry provider – 32,000+ beneficiaries- Shell companies -Alleged Money Laundering – Direction issued by the Tribunal to AO to intimate/report to SEBI, ED, MCA and ROC regarding details of money laundering activities-Directed the Assessing officer to share information about all beneficiaries within 90 days – Ex -parte order was quashed – Direction of the Appellate Tribunal was set aside – Tribunal must try and confine itself to the question that really arises in the appeal before it and not travel outside the ambit of its jurisdiction and express opinions prejudicial to the assessee which may help the Department in taking proceedings against the assessee – Court directed the Tribunal decide on merits . [S. 68, 132, 150, Prevention of Money- Laundering Act, 2002; 11, Art. 226]

Naresh Manakchand Jain v. The Registrar, ITAT ( 2024) 296 Taxman 101/ 337 CTR 218 (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org/Order of Tribunal in Naresh Manakchand Jain v. ACIT [IT Appeal Nos. 1945 & 1946 of 2023, dated 31-8-2023 (2023)108 ITR 627/(2024) 228 TTJ 349 (Mum) ( Trib )(Mum)( Trib) is set aside

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Information – Internal Audit objection- Not permissible – Change of opinion -Information not based on the objection raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India – Reassessment impermissible- Change of opinion- Audit objection raised by CAG a view deviating from that which was taken in the course of original assessment order is change of opinion -Impermissible . [ S. 45, 48, 50C, 148 ,148A(b), 148A(d), 151 Art. 226 ]

Hasmukh Estates Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2023)459 ITR 524/(2024) 158 taxmann.com 543/ 335 CTR 492 ( Bom)(HC)

Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020.
S. 4 : Filing of declaration and particulars to be furnished-Delay in filing of an appeal-Pending-Pendency of appeal. [S. 2(1)(a), 10, Art. 226]

Medeor Hospital Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 291 Taxman 368/ 330 CTR 331 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 281B : Provisional attachment-Fixed deposit of two banks-Recording of satisfaction-Mere apprehension that huge tax demands were likely to be raised on completion of assessment was not sufficient to constitute formation of opinion for purpose of provisional attachment-Order of provisional attachment is held to be illegal.[Art. 226]

Xiaomi Tecnology India (P) Ltd v.Dy.CIT(2023) 291 Taxman 315 (Karn)(HC)