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. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Penalty notice provided less than 24 hours to assessee to appear in person or through authorized representative-Shorter period could be termed as a pure and simple breach of principles of natural justice-Assessing Officer was to be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to assessee from stage where it was left-Matter remanded.[Art. 226]

Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 293 Taxman 189 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Reassessment-Pendency of writ petition-Revision petition filed by assessee against reassessment order was to be decided.[S. 143(3), 147, 264(4)(a), Art. 226]

Ratan Industries Ltd. v. PCIT (2023) 293 Taxman 690 (All.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Cash credits-Share capital-Unsecured loans-Record-Principal Commissioner had to examine all records pertaining to assessment year at time of examination by him, which included, post-search assessment proceedings and thereafter only if he found that order passed by Assessing Officer on any issue was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to interest of revenue-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed.[S. 68, 153A]

PCIT v. Techno Tracom (P.) Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 392/334 CTR 820/ 226 CTR 185/(2024) 461 ITR 47 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Provision for doubtful debts-Air-conditioning charges-Employees contributions(EPF/ ESI-Assessing Officer followed the order of jurisdictional High Court-Order in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd (2023) 290 Taxman 19/(2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) is considered-Order of Tribunal quashing the revision order is affirmed. [S. 36(1)(va), 37 (1)]

PCIT v. SPPL Property Management (P.) Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 458 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Specific query was raised in the original assessment proceedings-Mere failure to issue notice under section 133(6) did not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act-Order of Tribunal is affirmed.[S. 37(1), 143(3)]

PCIT v. R.K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 465 /(2024) 464 ITR 555(Delhi)(HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed , PCIT v. R.K. Jain Infra Projects (P.) Ltd ( 2024) 297 Taxman 369 /464 ITR 584( SC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Case-There was no case pending in relation to assessment years on date of respective applications-Any proceeding for assessment under this Act-Application for the Assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14 are held to be not maintainable-Applications in respect of assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were maintainable because in terms of Explanation (iv) proceedings for said assessment years were not concluded on date on which assessees had filed their respective applications-Order of Settlement Commission was affirmed.[S.148, 245A,Art. 226]

Sushil Kumar Goyal v. P CIT (2023) 293 Taxman 653 /333 CTR 464/ 226 DTR 345 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Assessing Officer failed to disclose reasons while rejecting stay application and Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to consider stay application considering financial hardships-Assessee was directed to deposit 10 per cent of disputed demand-Matter remanded. [S. 144, 156, 250, Art. 226]

Goa Forest Development Corporation v. PCIT (2023) 293 Taxman 62 /333 CTR 509 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Book profit-Claim of set off of book loss or unabsorbed depreciation upto assessment year 2014-15-Debatable issue-Order of Tribunal allowing the appeal of the assessee is affirmed. [S. 115JB]

PCIT v. Lanshree Products & Services Ltd. (2023) 293 Taxman 53 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Assessment orders were passed without giving reasons as to why department had not granted specific time despite petitioner’s specific request-Assessment orders were quashed and matters to be remanded back to department for fresh consideration.[S. 143(3), 153B, Art. 226]

KPL Assets LLP v. ACIT (2023) 293 Taxman 474/ (2025 ) 472 ITR 157 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Limitation of six years from end of relevant assessment year-All original notices under section 148 referable to old regime and issued between 1-4-2021 to 30-6-2021 would stand beyond prescribed permissible timeline of six years from end of assessment year 2013-14 and assessment year 2014-15-All notices they would relate to assessment year 2013-14 or assessment year 2014-15 would be time barred as per provisions of Act as applicable in old regime prior to 1-4-2021-These notices could not have been issued as per amended provisions of Act-Notice dated 26-5-2022 issued by respondent-Assessing Officer under section 148, seeking to reopen assessment in respect of assessment year 2014-15 and order dated 30-6-2022 passed under section 148A(d), and all consequential actions, were quashed and set aside-Circulars and Notifications : Notification No. 38 of 2021, dated 27-4-2021.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Micro Chem v. UOI (2023) 293 Taxman 608 (Guj.)(HC)