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. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search and seizure-No incriminating material had been gathered or obtained-Satisfaction notes also failed to record any reasons as to how material discovered and pertaining to a particular Assessment Year was likely to have a bearing on determination of total income for year which was sought to be abated or reopened in terms of notices-SLP filed by revenue against the order of High Court was dismissed on ground of delay of 250,, 215 and 267 days as well as on merits.[S. 132, Art. 136]
ACIT v. Satya Pal Arya (2025) 305 Taxman 410 (SC) ACIT v. Neelkanth Steel and Alloys (2025) 305 Taxman 488 (SC) Editorial : Saksham Commodities Ltd v.ITO (2024) 161 taxmann.com 485/ 464 ITR 1 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 153B : Assessment-Search and seizure-Time limit-Satisfaction note-date was required to be considered as 24-6-2022-Period available for making an assessment pursuant to notice dated 19-12-2023 would lapse on expiry of twelve months from end of financial year in which documents were handed over, that is, on 31-3-2024-The notice was quashed and set aside.[S. 132, 153C, Art. 226]
Carol Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 42 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Beyond three years-Notice was not issued with prior approval of Principal Chief Commissioner or any other authority specified under section 151(ii) which was a mandatory requirement-Notice was quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151(1), 151(ii), Art. 226]
Bhagwan Sahai Sharma v. Dy. CIT (2025) 305 Taxman 387 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Amount involved is more than Rs. 50 lakhs-Approval has to be obtained from Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner as defined under section 151(ii)-Approval was obtained from Principal Commissioner in terms of section 151(i) and no approval was obtained before issuance of reopening notice in terms of provision of section 151(ii)-Reopening notice was quashed and set aside. [S. 148,149, 151(1), 151(ii), Art. 226]
Core Logistic Company v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 420 (Mad)(HC)
S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Since only one day was available for issuance of notice, after giving opportunity of filing reply to assessee-Last date to issue notice as per judgment of Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal would be 12-6-2022-Notice under section 148 was issued on 15-7-2022-Notice dated 30-6-2021 was an invalid notice Notice dated 15-7-2022 as well as notice dated 30-6-2021was quashed and set aside. [S. 148,148A(b), 148A(d), Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA). S.3, Art. 226]
Saroj Predhiman Kaw v. Dy. CIT (2025) 305 Taxman 650 (Guj)(HC)
S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Old regime-Notice dt 23-7 2022 seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2015-16-Following UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 301 Taxman 238/ 469 ITR 46 (SC) all notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA-Accordingly the notice and proceedings are quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Lalit Gulati v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 11 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Old regime-dated 1-6-2021 seeking to reopen assessment for assessment year 2015-16-Following UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 301 Taxman 238/ 469 ITR 46 (SC) all notices issued on or after 1-4-2021 would have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during period prescribed under TOLA-Accordingly the notice and proceedings are quashed and set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Veena Jain v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 534 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Long term capital gains from equities-Amount was below threshold limit of Rs. 50 lakhs-Notice was issued beyond period of limitation as prescribed under section 149(1)(a) and conditions as specified so as to attract provisions of section 149(1)(b) were not satisfied, same was set aside. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(a), 149(1)(b), Art. 226]
Manjeet Kaur Duggal v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 305 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purcahses-Information received from GST department-Disregarding response furnished by assessee solely for reason of information on portal and simply reiterating information as available, would render procedure under section 148A meaningless-Accordingly reopening notice issued against assessee was set aside [S. 69C, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Devat and Ram Company (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 538 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-No reason was given in support of conclusion that escaped income was more than Rs. 50 lakhs-Matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer to decide same afresh in accordance with law.[S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Neena Singh Thakur v. PCIT (2025) 305 Taxman 194 (HP)(HC)