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. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Long term capital gain-Verified in the original assessment proceedings-Reopening notice and reassessment order is set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration. [S. 45, 147 148, Art. 226]

Seema Gupta v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 519 / (2023) 457 ITR 642(Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Failure to consider the submission-Proceedings not concluded-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226, 227]

Red Chilli International Sales v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 107 (P& H)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Response to show cause notice was not considered-No jurisdiction error-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(d), Art. 226, 227]

Krishana Goel v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 213 (P& H)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchase-Non supply of clear and legible copies-Cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings-Three working days to file reply-Natural justice not violated-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148(d), Art. 226]

Indure (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 142 taxmann.com 66/ 216 DTR 233 / 327 CTR 761 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, Indure (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 721 (SC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Reassessment proceeding was at its intermediate stage and was yet to be concluded by statutory authority-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, Art. 226, 227]

Gian Castings (P) Ltd. v. CBDT (2022) 140 taxmann.com 318 (P& H)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed, Gian Castings (P) Ltd. v. CBDT (2022) 288 Taxman 167 (SC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Response filed to notice not considered-Proceedings not concluded-Interim stage-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226, 227]

FTC Overseas v. CBDT (2022) 288 Taxman 321 /(2023) 456 ITR 686 / 332 CTR 724 (P & H)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Unexplained expenditure-Recorded reasons refers transaction amounting Rs. 45 lakhs-Documentary evidence was filed to show that no transaction of Rs. 45 lakhs was entered during the financial year-Reassessment notice and order disposing objection was quashed-Cost of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the Revenue. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

Uphill Farms (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 144 / 213 DTR 410 / 326 CTR 671 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Natural justice-Loan-Search-Neither furnished copy of statement nor an opportunity of cross examination was provided-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed and set aside-Matter Remanded back to Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision after furnishing all details and documents sought for by asseseee. [S. 69C, 148, Art. 226]

Sarwan Kumar Poddar v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 763 / 220 DTR 120/ 329 CTR 764 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : Order of single judge , Sarwan Kumar Poddar v. UOI (2022) 220 DTR 127/ 329 DTR 771(Cal)( HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Income as per annual information statement in Form No. 26AS was higher than shown by assessee in P/L account-Non disclosure of primary facts-Notice issued after investigation-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 148, 194A 194C 194J, Form No 26AS, Art. 226]

Distributors India C and F v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 230 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest on borrowed capital-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 36(1)(iii), 148, Art. 226]

Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 288 Taxman 587 / 216 DTR 131 / 327 CTR 792 (Cal.)(HC)