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. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)–Powers -Failure to submit grounds of appeal–Violation of principle of natural justice–Ex-parte order was set aside. [S. 250, Form No.35, Art. 226]

Prime ABGB (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC [2023] 147 taxmann.com 357 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245R : Advance rulings–Non -Resident–Capital gains –Shell company – CBDT circulars and press release of Ministry of Finance -Certificate of residence issued by Mauritius Authorities would constitute sufficient evidence – Denial of benefit of Double Taxation avoidance agreement – Matter remanded to Authority for Advance Rulings for reconsideration-DTAA-India–Mauritius. [S. 45, 197(1), 245Q, Art. 13, Art. 226]

Bid Services Division (Mauritius) Ltd v. AAR (2023)453 ITR 461 / 334 CTR 389(Bom) (HC)

S. 226 : Collection and recovery – Modes of recovery – Assessee-in-default- On remittance of Rs 43 Crores the notice and order were to be quashed and set aside and all further action in respect thereof would be prohibited. [S. 226 (3), Art. 226

TJSB Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 151 taxmann.com 254 (Bom)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery- Assessee deemed in default – High pitched assessment–Change its status from firm to trust– Complete stay was granted – Remanded to Assessing Officer to consider assesse’s status as Trust. [S. 250, Art. 226]

BHIL Employees Welfare Fund No.4 v. ITO [2023] 147 taxmann.com 427 / 455 ITR 130 (Bom)(HC)

S. 220 : Collection and recovery of tax–High pitched assessment – Complete stay of demand was granted. [S. 10(34), 10(38), 68, Art. 226]

Humuza Consultants v. ACIT [2023] 451 ITR 77 (Bom)(HC)

S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors-Recovery proceedings- Gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty -Not proved – Order of the Assessing Officer and order rejecting the revision application was quashed. [S. 264, Art. 226]

Geeta P.Kamat v. PCIT (2023) 150 taxmann.com 490 / 455 ITR 234 (Bom)(HC)

S. 153 : Assessment-Reassessment-Limitation-Remand-Failure to comply with remand order made by Tribunal – Delay of 12 years – Assessment became time barred – Directed the Revenue to refund the amount along with interest under section 244A of the Act. [S. 132, 153(3), 158BC, 244A, Art. 226]

Lakhpatrai Agarwal v. ACIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 348 / 292 Taxman 282 // (2024) 338 CTR 891/470 ITR 123 (Bom)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years – Sanction obtained from Additional Commissioner not from Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner-Notice was quashed-Faceless Assessment-Mandatory condition-Draft Assessment order-Condition not complied with-Final assessment order was quashed and set aside. [S. 144B(1)(xvi), 147, 148, Art. 226]

Rinku R. Rai v. ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 478 / 454 ITR 33 (Bom)(HC)/Editorial: Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , ITO v. Pinki Rajesh Modi (2024) 297 Taxman 397 (SC)

S. 151 : Reassessment – Sanction for issue of notice -Approval obtained from additional Commissioner and not from specified authority — Notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, 151(ii), Art. 226]

MA Multi-Infra Development Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023)451 ITR 181/149 taxmann.com 491 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment – Service of notice – Return submitted giving new address — Notice sent to old address — No proper service of notice — Notice and reassessment proceedings not valid – Sanction for issue of notice – After expiry of three years – Approval of Principal Commissioner (PCIT) is not valid – Approval is required from Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) – Order was quashed. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(a), 151(iii), Art. 226]

Chitra Supekar (Mrs.) v. ITO [2023] 149 taxmann.com 26 / 292 Taxman 511 / 453 ITR 530 / 332 CTR 374 (Bom.)(HC)