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

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 .
S. 26E : Priority to secured creditors- Charge on mortgaged property – First charge in favour of Bank – Tax Authority had second charge – Purchase of property from private sale held by bank – Paid full consideration – Tax Authority had no right to disturb title , interest and possession – Charge created by the Tax Authority was quashed [ Value Added Tax Act 2003 , S. 9, 46 , 48 , Art . 226 ]

Nueva Mosaics LLP v. Department of Central Sales Tax .AIR 2023 GUJARAT 133

Right to Information Act , 2005 .

S. 3: Right to information – Non -Citizens can also get the information under Right to Information Act – There is no bar.. [ S. 4, 5 ,6,7,18 Art . 5, 21, 226 ]

A.S Rawat v. Dawa Tashi AIR 2023 DELHI 252

S. 153C: Assessment – Income of any other person – Search- Business of financing- Loan not repaid- Treated as bad-debts- Search on the premises of debtors- Subsequently, notice issued to- Assessing Officer is not justified in assuming jurisdiction where assessment has not been abated where no incriminating material was found- Best judgement assessment- Notice under section 143(2) is mandatory -Reassessment – Change of opinion- Issues dealt with during original assessment-Full and true disclosure of information-No new tangible material – Reassessment is bad in law- No failure to comply with notice under section. 142 – Best judgement assessment is bad in law – CBDT Circular -Binding on Revenue – Assessment order issued without bearing Document Identification Number (DIN)- Order is invalid. [S.36(1)(vii) 119, 132,133A, 143(2)(2) 144, 147 , 148, 153A, Art. 226]

Ashok Commercial Enterprises v. ACIT (2023)459 ITR 100 /154 taxmann.com 144 / 334 CTR 757 (Bom) (HC) www.itatonline .org .

Interpretation of taxing statute – If statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner – Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless Jurisdiction of income -tax authorities. [ S. 148A, Art , 226 ]

Kanakanala Ravindra Reddy and Ors v .UOI ( 2023) 295 Taxman 652 / 334 CTR 646 ( Telangana )(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Faceless Jurisdiction of income -tax authorities – e- Assessment Scheme, 2022- It is mandatory for Revenue to conduct /initiate proceedings to reassessment in a faceless manner – Concurrent jurisdiction -Reassessment notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not by Faceless Assessing Officer – CBDT notification – Finance Act , 2021 -Procedure adopted by the Revenue is contravention of the statute – When the initiation of the proceedings itself was procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also gets nullified automatically- Interpretation of taxing statute – If statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner . [ S.119, 124, 130(1), 130(2), 144B, 147, 148, 148A (d), 151A, e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme 2022- , 2(1)b),3, Art ,142, 226 ]

Kanakanala Ravindra Reddy and Ors v .UOI ( 2023) 295 Taxman 652 / 334 CTR 646 ( Telagana )(HC) www.itatonline .org

S.115O: Tax on distributed profits of domestic companies – Tax on distributed income to share holders – Buy back of shares –Capital reduction – Deemed dividend – The consideration paid by the assessee to its shareholders for purchase of its own shares was liable to tax as deemed dividend u/s.2(22)(d) of the Act, and alternatively, u/s.2(22)(a) of the Act, and consequently, the assessee company was liable for payment of Dividend Distribution Tax (in short “DDT”) u/s.115-O of the Act. – DTAA -India – Mauritius . [ S. 2(22)(a),2(22)(d), 10(34), 46A, 115O , Companies Act 1956 , S. 77A, 100, 102, 104 , 391 to 393 , Companies Act , 2013 , 68 , Art. 13 .]

Cognizant Technology- Solutions India Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT(2023) 225 TTJ 873 ( Chennai )( Trib) www.itatonline.org

S. 28(i): Business income – Income from house property – Builder – Stock in trade – Leave and licence – Income from licencing of residential flats assessable as business income and not as income from house property. [ S. 22, 23 ]

Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt Ltd v. Dy.CIT ( Mum) ( Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 148A: Reassessment – Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice – Beyond limitation – Sanction -Signed by wrong specifying authority – Beyond period of three years – TOLA is not applicable to AY.2015-2016 or any subsequent years- No power to review – Change of opinion – Order is quashed as bad in law . [ S. 147,148 ,148A(b), 148A(d)), 149(1)(b), 151(i), 151 (ii), Art . 226 , Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act. 2020 ( TOLA S. 3 )

Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2023) 457 ITR 647/154 taxmann.com 159 / 334 CTR 825 (Bom)( HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 5 : Property held benami liable to confiscation-Benami property- Benami transactions-Benami Transactions-Attachment, adjudication and confiscation-Sections 3 and 5 which deal with criminal offences applicable effective only from 25-10-2016- Provisions are prospective. [S. 2(8), 2(9), 3, 24]

Banamali Das v. Dy. CIT (2023)453 ITR 569 (Gauhati)(HC) Ganesh Chandra Das v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 569 (Gauhati)(HC) Ganesh Chandra Das. v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 565 (Gauhati)(HC) Salien Das v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 569 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 2(9) : Benami Property Transactions-Amendment of Act in 2016 Provisions are substantive-Not applicable with retrospective effect- The amendments to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 brought by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 do not have retrospective effect.[S. 2(9)(A) (2(9)(C), Art, 20, 136, 226]

ACIT v. Nexus Feeds Ltd (2023)453 ITR 459 (SC) Editorial: Nexus Feeds Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 444 ITR 261 (Telangana) (HC), affirmed.