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-Deemed dividend-No failure to disclose truly and fully material facts-Referred 68 cases laws however not stated how case laws are applicable to the facts-The Order was quashed by observing that the Faceless Assessing Officer has wasted his time in writing unsustainable order on objects. [S. 2(22)(e), 148, Art. 226]

Hanwant Manbir Singh v. Dy. CIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Demerger-Notice not specifying failure to disclose any material facts truly and fully by assessee-Notice and subsequent order invalid. [S. 148, 263, Companies Act, 1956, S. 391 to394, Art. 226]

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC)(UR)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Order passed without considering petitioners submission-Reasonable time not given to respond to show cause notice-Order and subsequent notices quashed-levied cost on the Assessing Officer Rs. 25,000 to be deposited to PM Cares Fund.[S.142(1), 143(3), 156, S.270A, 217AAC, Art. 226]

Parag Kishorchandra Shah v. NFAC (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Show cause notice was never served upon the petitioner-Natural justice-Personal hearing shall be issued at least seven working days in advance-Stricture-Harassment to assessee-Wasting precious judicial time and unnecessary expenditure on lawyers-The court held that the conduct of Assessing Officer was unacceptable and issuing of show cause notice cannot be just an empty formality. [S. 147,148, Art. 226]

Chetan D. Divekar v.  NFAC  (Bom)(HC)(UR)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Assessment order passed without draft assessment order-No personal hearing given-Order was quashed and set aside. [S. 133(6), 143(2), 156, 271AAC, 271B, 274, Art. 226]

ND’s Art World Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Bogus purchases-Hawala dealers-Sales tax Department-Gift materials-Additions made to the total income on account of bogus purchases-Stock register and quantity details filed-Deletion Tribunal-Order of Tribunal is affirmed. [S. 69C, 260A]

PCIT  v. Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC) (UR)

S. 80IB(10) : Housing projects-Developer-SRA project-Ownership of land is not requirement of the statute-Entitle to deduction-Revision was held to be not valid. [S. 263]

PCIT  v. Vishnu Enterprises (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 40(a)(ia) : Amounts not deductible-Deduction at source-Provision for expenses-No disallowance is to be made for failure to deduct tax at source-Tax was deducted when payment was made-Deletion of disallowance is justified. [S. 37(1), 145]

PCIT v. Rediff.Com India Ltd. (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 (Finance Act, 1997, (1997) 225 ITR 113 (St) (141)
S. 68 : Voluntary disclosed income not to be included in the total income-Voluntary disclosed income not to affect finality of completed assessment-Tax in respect of voluntary disclosed income not refundable-Assessee cannot seek to reopen assessment of income disclosed under scheme-Not entitled to refund of tax paid-Cannot disclose part of his income under scheme and disclose balance in a belated return. [S. 64, 69, 70, IT Act, S. 139, 264]

Subhash Chandra v. CIT (2022) 448 ITR 152 / 212 DTR 315 / 326 CTR 36 (MP.)(HC)

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988,
S. 24 : Attachment, adjudication and confiscation-Search and Seizure-Benami Transactions-Provisional Attachment of property-Order for continuation of provisional attachment till final order of adjudicating authority-Failure to provide opportunity of cross examination-Dismissal of writ petition-No statutory provision stipulating providing of cross-examination of w itnesses-No violation of Principles of natural justice-Writ petition dismissed-All contentions of appellants to be raised before adjudicating authority during proceedings. [S. 24(1), 24(4), 24(4)(a)(i), 26(3), IT Act, S. 132, Art. 226]

Marg Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. v Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2022)448 ITR 649 (Mad) (HC) Marg Capital Markets Ltd v Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2022) 448 ITR 649 (Mad.) (HC) Venus Meridian Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2022) 448 ITR 649 (Mad.)(HC) Global Infoserv Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2022) 448 ITR 649 (Mad.)(HC) Marg Realities Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) (2022) 448 ITR 649 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge in Marg Realities Ltd v Dy. CIT (Benami Prohibition) 448 ITR 574 (Mad)(HC) affirmed.