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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Limitation-Share capital-Cash credits-Revision-Lack of enquiry-Appeal dismissed on the ground that issues raised in appeals were covered by several orders passed by Tribunal-Not dealt with merits-Matter was sent back to Tribunal to take a decision [S. 68, 260A,263]
Olympus Suppliers (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 41 (Cal.)(HC)
S. 252 : Appellate Tribunal-Members-Qualification-Appointment of Members Contempt-Not appointing the members of the Tribunal-Recommendations of the Search cum selection commission-Before recommendations are formulated and in exceptional cases where certain material comes to light after submission of recommendations, that must also be drawn to attention of SCSC so as to enable it to consider whether any modification of its recommendations is necessary. [Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, S. 3]
Advocate Association Bengaluru v. Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (2022) 288 Taxman 8 (SC).
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Directed to deposit 10 percent of outstanding demand. [S. 220(6), 246A, Art. 226]
Yeswath Kavitha v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 120 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 220 : Collection and recovery-Assessee deemed in default-Stay-Deposited 20 percent of demand-Pendency of stay application-Recovered entire amount in a ex parte manner-Assessing Officer was directed to refund excess amount already recovered from assessee and he would be entitled to keep only 20 per cent of demand until appeal was decided. [Art. 226]
Ram Gopal Sharma v. ITO (2022) 288 Taxman 211/(2023) 331 CTR 110 (Raj.)(HC)
S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Not liable to deduct TDS on telecom service provider, on payment of interconnect user charges as it could not be categorized as fee for technical services. [S. 9(1)(vii), 201]
CIT (TDS) v. Tata Teleservices Ltd. (2022) 288 Taxman 775 / 217 DTR 453 (2023) 456 ITR 691 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 194J : Deduction at source-Fees for professional or technical services-Supply of rolling stock-Payment to consortium not liable to deduct tax at source. [S. 201(IA)]
CIT v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 431/ 288 Taxman 539 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 153 : Assessment-Reassessment-Limitation-Limitation starts only from last date of financial year wherein notice was served on assessee and not from when notice was issued or sent by revenue. [S. 147, 148, 153(2), Art. 226]
Rajesh Gupta v. NFAC (2022) 288 Taxman 553 /(2023) 456 ITR 479/ 335 CTR 345(Mad.)(HC)
S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Corporate social responsibility-Sanction of Commissioner or Principal Commissioner is a pre-requisite for issuance of a reopening notice under section 148 after expiry of four years from end of relevant assessment year-Reopening notice with sanction of Additional Commissioner was quashed and set aside. [S. 35AC, 80G, 92CA, 147, 148, 151(2), Art. 226]
Voltas Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 288 Taxman 506 / 213 DTR 169 / 327 CTR 748 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Natural justice-Opportunity of hearing was not given-Order was set aside and matter remanded back to consider case a fresh. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Zoomcar India (P) Ltd v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 761 (Karn.)(HC)