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. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Best judgement assessment-Dismissed ex-parte-Matter restored to Assessing Officer for assessment afresh. [S. 144, 147, Form No 26AS.]

Karia Hareshbhai Bhagwandas, HUF v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 78 (SN) (Ahd)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Not adjudicated on merits-Filed written submissions-Order is set aside and grounds restored to him for decision on merits, after affording adequate opportunity of being heard-Appeal filed before Bangalore bench-Time spent in filing appeal before Bangalore Bench is to be excluded-Delay in filing appeal is condoned.[S. 254(1)), Limitation Act, 1963, S.5]

Global Green Company Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024)110 ITR 29 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 250 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Procedure-Ex-parte order-Duty of Commissioner (Appeals) to decide merits of each point arising in appeal-Matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication afresh on merits after giving assessee opportunity of hearing. [S.250(4) 250(6)]

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel v. Dy. CIT (2024)110 ITR 39 (SN)(Ahd) (Trib)

S. 246A : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Appealable orders-Only those specifically mentioned in Section-Fee-Default in furnishing the statements–Letter of ITO to assessee for recovery of outstanding demand-Not appealable. [S.234E]

Padmakar Vishwas Date v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 48 (SN)(Pune)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Unexplained investments-Survey-Payment made to vendor under Registered sale-cum-General power of Attorney agreements-Amounts received as advances from 30 Persons-Only part of sum confirmed-Agreeing to addition of balance as unexplained investment-Vendor unilaterally cancelled all General Power of attorney-cum-sale agreements by registered cancellation deeds and took back possession of property on ground that he had not received any consideration from assessee-Registered cancellation of sale deed is not valid without decree of Civil Court Rejection of rectification application is valid.[S.69,133A, Specific Relief Act, 1963, S. 31, 32, 33, Registration Act, 1908,]

Kotyala Sujatha (Smt) v. ITO (2024)110 ITR 12 (SMC) (SN) (Vishakha)(Trib)

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Mistake apparent from the record-Intimation-Appeal against intimation withdrawn on ground return selected for scrutiny-Regular assessment on scrutiny made without taking into account disallowances proposed in intimation-Rectification order in respect of delayed deposit of employee contributions to the provident fund and employees Stat Insurance-Change of law-No merger of orders passed under intimation and regular assessment-Rectification is proper.[S.143(1), 143(3)]

Orient Craft Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 622 (Delhi) (Trib)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Unabated assessment-No incriminating material found during search-Addition based on loose sheets is unsustainable.[S. 132, 132(4), 153A]

Ravi Badalia v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 329 (Kol) (Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-No incriminating material is found-Addition is deleted. [S. 148]

Poonam Promoters And Developers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024)110 ITR 28 (SN) (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Cost of construction of hotel building-Original assessment completed and not abated on date of search-No incriminating material is found-Reference to Departmental valuation officer is not valid-Addition is deleted-Cost of construction of hotel building prior to commencement of hotel business-Capital invested by shareholders-Addition is deleted. [S. 69, 132, 143(2)]

Khanna Infrabuild P. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 161 / 227 TTJ 97 / 233 DTR 17 (Chd)(Trib)

S. 153A: Assessment-Search-Bogus purchases and sales-No evidence was found during search or in course of assessment proceedings to prove sellers and buyers bogus-Profit estimated on unproved purchases and 5 Per Cent. profit on unproved sales is held to be not proper.[S.69C]

Bee Pee Rollers P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 402 (Cuttack) (Trib) Bajrangbali Re-Rollers P.Ltd v. Asst. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 402 (Cuttack) (Trib) Bajrangbali Steel Industries P.Ltd v. Asst. CIT (2024) 110 ITR 402 (Cuttack) (Trib)