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. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Transactions not disclosed in initial notices-Department cannot travel beyond notice-Notice and order set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
U. S. Associates v. PCIT (2023) 451 ITR 424 / 330 CTR 317 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-New procedure with effect from 1-4-2021 Notices for prior periods issued without complying with new provision-Notices were quashed. [S. 147, 148,149(1)(b), Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, Art. 226]
Sukhdev International Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2023) 451 ITR 534 (Raj.)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-After three years from the end of relevant assessment year-Service of notice without the signature of Assessing Officer digitally or manually-Notice invalid-Order and notice was quashed and set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 14, 226]
Prakash Krishnavtar Bhardwaj v. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 27 / 331 CTR 64/150 taxmann.com 60 / 293 Taxman 132 (Bom.)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Natural justice-Reply filed by the assessee was not considered-Order was set aside. [S. 147, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Popular Medicos v. ACIT (2023) 451 ITR 90 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Failure to consider a reply to show cause notice and personal hearing-Order was set aside-Directed to pass an order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Parthasarathy Chitra v. ITO (2023)451 ITR 442 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information from Investigation Wing-Capital gains-Alleged bogus scripts-Penny stock-Failure to furnish information received from Investigation Wing-Notice was quashed-Directed the AO to furnish the information and pass the order after considering the explanation of the assessee. [S. 45, 69A, 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]
Kusum Gupta v. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 142 / 290 Taxman 172 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Change of opinion-Long-term capital gains-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 54, 147, 148, 148A(d), Art. 226]
Kamlesh Keswani v. ACIT (2023) 451 ITR 153 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order for the issue of notice based on the vague report of Deputy Director (Investigation)-Potential cash borrowings-Reassessment proceedings were quashed-Assessing Officer not following the direction of Court has indirectly interfered exposed with the administration of justice thereby exposing himself to proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971, Art. 226]
Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v. UOI (NO. 2) (2023) 451 ITR 320 /333 CTR 388/150 taxmann.com 54 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : Decision of single judge in Girdhar Gopal Dalmia v UOI (NO.) (2023)451 ITR 318 /333 CTR 387 (Cal)(HC), reversed.SLP of Revenue is dismissed as failure to explain delay of 399 days , PCIT v. Girdhar Gopal Dalmia (2024) 299 Taxman 362 / 464 ITR 393 (SC)
S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Right of personal hearing-Mandatory-CBDT circular is binding on the Department-Order was set aside. [S. 148, Art, 226]
Beboy Joseph John v. ACIT (2023)451 ITR 447 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Assessment-Company struck off Register and restoration of registration subsequently-Company deemed to be in existence even during the period when it was struck off Register-Petition being not bonafide, the petitioner was directed to deposit the Cost of Rs.50000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services committee. [S. 143(3), Companies Act, 2013, S. 252(3), 248]
Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal v. ITO (2023) 451 ITR 100 (Delhi)(HC)