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-Limitation-Business application showing E-Mail served at 5. Am on April 1, after the expiry of time-Notice and reassessment order barred by limitation-Notice and assessment order was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]
Santosh Krishna (HUF) v. UOI (2022) 449 ITR 457 (All.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Employee benefit expenses-The successor officer had not come into possession of any other information to indicate escapement of income but merely relied upon the methodology adopted by the assessee to apprehend escapement of tax-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]
NLC India Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 449 ITR 367 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Loan-Associated enterprise-International transaction-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice not valid and objection disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 92C, 148, Art. 226]
Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 631 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-Two notices-Reassessment was initiated vide two notices-Limitation-Succeeding officer can continue proceedings from that stage-Issue of second notice does not signify dropping of proceedings on first notice-Reopening of assessment is valid. [S. 129, 148]
Dy. CIT v. Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 239 / 219 DTR 378 /329 CTR 457/145 taxmann.com 157/ (2023) 290 Taxman 377 (SC) Editorial: Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2018) 407 ITR 242 (Delhi)(HC) reversed.
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Mistake of Assessing Officer-Error discovered reconsideration of same facts does not give power to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment-Reassessment notice and order disposal of objection was quashed-Order of High Court affirmed. [S. 148, Art. 136]
ACIT v. CEAT Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 171 / 218 DTR 441/ 329 CTR 227/(2023) 291 Taxman 435 (SC) Editorial: CEAT Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 291 Taxman 366 (Bom.)(HC) www.itatonline.org
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Mandatory proceedings-Draft assessment order proposing variations to returned income must be submitted to DRP–Order on remand must also be submitted to DRP-Not curable defects. [S. 92CA, 144C(2), 253(1)(d), 292B]
PCIT v. Appollo Tyres Ltd. (2022) 449 ITR 398 (Ker.)(HC)
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Failure to issue show-cause notice or draft assessment order-Natural justice-Assessment orders set aside with directions for issue of show-cause notices or draft assessment orders, hear assessees and pass assessment orders afresh. [S. 143(2), 144C, Art, 226]
P.T. Lee Chengalvaraya Naicker Trust v. NFAC (2022) 449 ITR 351 / 219 DTR 185/ 329 CTR 613 /(2023) 290 Taxman 52(Mad.)(HC)
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment –Principle of natural justice-Failure to grant opportunity of hearing through Video conferencing-Order was set aside. [S.143(3), 144B(7), 263, Art. 226]
Mudar Sudheer v. UOI (2022)449 ITR 344 (AP)(HC)
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of the principle of natural justice-Unable to respond due to technical glitch-Order was set aside and matter remanded. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]
Faqir Chand (Through Legal heir Sh. Kapil Muni) v. NEAC (2022)449 ITR 603 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Guidelines for passing assessment order-Cash credits-2 G scam-Procedure for assessment laid down in Manual of office procedure issued by Directorate of Income-Tax must be followed-Assessing Officer must furnish to assessee all copies of documents referred to in order of assessment-Direction of the Tribunal must be followed-Prayer for one more opportunity to respondents was rejected-The assessment order was annulled. [S. 68, 254(1), Art. 226]
Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 492/(2023) 290 Taxman 334 (Mad.)(HC)