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. 144: Best judgement assessment-Search-Incriminating material-Assessment is valid-Best judgement-Failure to issue show cause notice for best judgement assessment-Assessment not valid-Jurisdiction-Order of transfer of jurisdiction challenged before High Court-Stay not granted-Completion of assessment in pendency of proceedings before High Court valid-Statements recorded by Investigation Wing used to support additions made-Failure to give an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses-Addition is not valid-Unsecured loan-Addition is not valid. [S. 68, 139, 144, 153A, 245C]

M. K. Rajendran Pillai v. ACIT (2023)102 ITR 290 (Cochin) (Trib)

S: 143(3) : Assessment-Bogus purchases-Inventory and Closing stock not disputed-Addition is deleted. [S. 132(4), 147, 148, 153A]

Talwar Jewellers v. ACIT (2023) 102 ITR 26 (SN) (Chd) (Trib.)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Assessment orders passed by Assessing Officer during the moratorium period under the provisions of IBC are void-ab-initio. [S.153A]

Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 102 ITR 29 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S.143(3) :Assessment-Mismatch of amount-All transaction shown in Form 26AS does not represent income-Addition is deleted.[S. 4, 139,Form, 26AS]

Oceanic Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2023) 102 ITR 70 (Ahd.)(Trib.)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Survey-Gross profit rate-Unaccounted sales-No material to indicate the assessee indulged in unaccounted sales post survey-Addition reduced considering electricity consumption-Justified. [S.133A]

ACIT v. Akash Gurudas Talreja (2023)102 ITR 52 (SN)(Pune) (Trib)

S. 143(1)(a) : Assessment-Intimation-Adjustment to the total income returned for the AY. 2017-18-Assessing Officer of CPC made an adjustment denying the credit for the TDS even though appearing in Form 26AS-No notice was issued to the assessee before making such adjustment. The CIT (Appeals) confirmed the Assessing Officer’s action for not granting TDS credit merely on the ground that the corresponding income has not been shown by the appellant in the return of income.[Form. 26AS]

Haft Propbuild P. Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 102 ITR 399 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 143(1)(a) : Assessment-Intimation-Co-operative society-Adjustment is not valid. [S. 80AC, 80P, 139(1)]

Jila Alp Sankhyak Bachat Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit v. DCIT(2021) 221 TTJ 404 (SMC) (Raipur) (Trib)

S. 115JB : Company-Book profit-Fuel and fixed cost adjustments made to power prices consequent to orders of regulatory commission-Liability ascertained-Expenditure deductible in computing book profit.[S. 37, 145]

West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)102 ITR 453 (Kol)(Trib)

S. 115JB : Company-Book profit –Insurance business-Assessee Not preparing financial statements as required under Companies Act-Minimum alternate tax not applicable. [S.44, Sch. I]

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (LTU) (2023)102 ITR 122 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Specified domestic transaction-The benchmarking has to be done based on the prevailing market rate which a normal bank would lend money with the minimum risk. Since the assessee has already mitigated the risk by investing in the fully convertible debentures when the risk is already mitigated one more time, the same risk element cannot be considered for bench marking on the interest payment also. [S.92CA]

Altico Capital India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 221 TTJ 365 (Mum) (Trib)