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. 147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Builder stock in trade- Notional income – Reassessment notice on the basis of Judgement of Delhi High Court in Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd ( 2013 ) 354 ITR 180 (Delhi)(HC) to assessee the income under section 23 of the Act was quashed [ S. 22, 23(5) , 148 , Art , 226 ]

Lokhanwala Construction Industries v .Dy .CIT ( Bom)(HC) www.itatonline .org

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice – Issuance of Notice requires the sanction of PCIT where the Notice is issued after 4 years – Relaxation Act not a bar for appropriate sanction- Reassessment notice is held to be bad in law . [ S. 147, 148 , Art , 226 ]

Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT( 2022) 326 CTR 871 /213 DTR 446 /(2023)452 ITR 285 (Orissa ) (HC) www.itatonline/org

S. 148: Reassessment – Notice-Constitutional validity – The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021 – Reassessment notices issued under section 148 of the Act are quashed-It is left open to the assessing authority to initiate – re-assessment proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2021 after making due compliance as required under the law. [S. 147, 148A, 149, 151, 151A, 153, 292 Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), S. 3(1) of the Act 38 of 2020, Art. 226]

Sudesh Taneja v. ITO (Raj)(HC) www.itatonline.org/Dharmendra Gupta (HUF ) v.ITO (2022) 285 Taxman 484( Raj)(HC/Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company (P.) Ltd v.ACIT (2022) 285 Taxman 500 ( Raj)(HC )

S. 271AA : Penalty-Failure to keep and maintain books of accounts-Documents-Specified domestic transactions (SDTs)-2 per cent of value of SDTs Exceeded qualifying amount of Rs. 5 crores-Transaction with relative was only to Rs. 1.80 lalks-Term relative as given in section 2(41), which will prevail for understanding connotation of term relative under section 40A(2)(b) over one given in Explanation to section 56(2)(v) of the Act-Levy of penalty was held to be not justified. [S. 2(41), 40A(2)(b), 56(2(v),92BA, 92D, 92E]

Anita Sunil Mahajan (Smt.) v. ACIT (2021) 191 ITD 272 / 89 ITR 52 (SN) / 213 TTJ 370 / 205 DTR 25 (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Commissioner has not pointed out any error for the relevant assessment year-Revision is held to be not valid. [S.40(a)(1), 92CA]

3M India Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 191 ITD 480 / 90 ITR 57 (SN) (Bang.)(Trib.)

S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Powers-Pandemic-Request for an adjournment of six months was rejected-Directed to fix the hearing on 24-5-2021.

DCIT v. Saroj Kumar Poddar (2021) 191 ITD 660 / 90 ITR 223/ 203 DTR 81 (Kol.)(Trib.)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Non-resident-Reimbursement of expenses- Cost of allocation-Not passed reasoned order-Matter remanded to CIT(A). [S. 9(1)(vii), 40(a)(i), 195, 250, 254(1)]

DCIT v. Barclays Global Services Centre (P.) Ltd. (2021) 191 ITD 84 / 89 ITR 40 (SN) (Pune)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Common order-Failure to mention Assessment year 2014-15-Matter remanded. [S. 154, 254(1)]

Sachin R. Tendulkar v. ACIT (2021) 191 ITD 478 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Reference to DVO-Failure to deal with various issues raised by the assessee-Matter remanded. [S.44F, 69A, 142A, 250(6), 254(1)]

Prince Rai v. ITO (2021) 191 ITD 144 / 213 TTJ 598 / 207 DTR 6 (SMC) (Jabalpur)(Trib.)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Principle of natural justice-Written submission-Right to be heard was not waived-Order was set aside. [S. 254 (1)]

Sukhvinder Pal Singh v. ITO (2021) 191 ITD 715 / 206 DTR 109 / 213 TTJ 880 (SMC) (Delhi)(Trib.)