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-Change of opinion-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Return was not filed in pursuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act-No hard and fast rule that the assessee should first file its return pursuant to the notice-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 14A, R. 8D, Art. 226]
The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)
S. 147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice and order rejecting the objection was quashed [S. 33AC, 80A(2), 80I, 80M, 148, Art. 226]
The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Mistake of Assessing Officer-Error discovered reconsideration of same facts does not give power to the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment-Reassessment notice and order disposal of objection was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]
CEAT Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 291 Taxman 366 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue dismissed , ACIT v. CEAT Ltd ( 2022) 449 ITR 171 ( SC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Audit query-Amount received towards corpus-Notice for reassessment and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]
All India Rubber Industries Association v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Closing stock-Notional income-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice and order rejecting the objection was quashed. [S. 22, 23, 148, Art. 226]
Harsh Kaushal Corporation v. ITO (Bom.)(HC) (UR)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Survey-Borrowed satisfaction-Reasons cannot be improved or supplemented-No failure to disclose material facts-Assessing Officer cannot rely on various case laws while disposing the objection without furnishing the copies or brining to the notice of the assessee-Notice of reassessment and order disposing the objection was set aside. [S. 133A, 148, Art. 226]
Patel Engineering Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 285 Taxman 55 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Revenue audit-Insurance business-Income from dividend from equity shares and interest from tax savings bonds-Reassessment notice and order disposing objection was quashed. [S. 10, 44, 148, Art. 226]
ECGC Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC) (UR)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Mandatory-Failure to follow the procedure under Section 144C(1) of the Act would be a jurisdictional error and not merely procedural error or a mere irregularity-Order of assessment was quashed and set aside. [S. 292B, Art. 226]
Shell India Market Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)
S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Remand proceedings-Draft assessment order has not been issued before the final assessment order is passed-The order set aside. [S. 92CA, 254(1), Art. 226]
ExxonMobil Company Private Limited v. DCIT (Bom.)(HC) (UR)
S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-less than two days to reply-Personal hearing was not given-Stricture-The Assessing Officer could not care for the assessee and was not even conscious of what he was actually doing-This is a pure form of harassment of the assessee, a tax payer-The entire approach smacks of high handedness and don’t care attitude-Directed the Assessing Officer to pay a sum of Rs 25, 000 as cost from his salary /personal bank account to PM Care fund-The matter shall be placed before different from the Officer who had passed the impugned order dated 22-4 2021-Order was set aside for denovo consideration. [Art. 226]
Gstaad Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC ( 2022) 218 DTR 265 (Bom.)(HC)