Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3: Benami Transactions — Notice in respect of transactions entered into prior to amendment in 2016 – Amendment to have effect only prospectively — Notice was quashed[ Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016, S 53 ]
Rajesh Katyal v .IT Department (2023)451 ITR 455 (Delhi)(HC)Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988
S. 3: Benami Property Transactions – Act not retrospective in operation — Not applicable to transactions entered into prior to coming into force of the Act ie. 25-10-2016. [S.2(9)(A)(b), 3(2), 5, Art .20(1) , Art, 226 ]
Jaladi Prasuna v. UOI (2023)451 ITR 477/ 290 Taxman 47 (Delhi)( HC)Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 .
S. 4: Declaration – Delay in payment of tax Time limit for deposit of tax — Substantial amount was deposited – Failure of the Chartered Accountant to information from the portal -Directed the Revenue to accept the balance deposit of tax with interest [ S. 119(2)(b), Art , 226 ]
Vidhi Garments Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT (2023)451 ITR 84/ 332 CTR 310/ 224 DTR 473 (Delhi)(HC)S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Levy of penalty-Tribunal set aside the penalty order-Prosecution is not justified. [S. 271(1)(c), 271F, 276C]
Metricstream Infotech (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 326 CTR 684 / 214 DTR 411(Karn.)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Not all information in possession of the officer can be construed as information that qualifies for initiation of proceedings for reassessment, and it is only such information that suggests escapement and which, based upon the material in his possession-Agreement between doctors and hospital-remuneration paid for fixed amount along with components such as number of patients treated etc. [r.w.s.15, 17, 28(i)][S. 148, Art. 226]
Mathew Cherian (Dr.) v. ACIT (2022) 219 DTR 2 / 329 CTR 809 (Mad.)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment Notice-show cause notice before passing the order-Petitioner within a period of four days submitted reply-the petitioner cannot challenge the notice on the ground that clear seven days’ time was not afforded-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, Art, 226]
Mathura Mercantile P. Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 213 DTR 433 / 326 CTR 606(MP)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Validity of notice-section 148A would not apply till limitation prescribed under section 148 does not lapse or expire-Notice has stayed-Matter was adjourned to 24-1-2022. [S. 132, 148, 151, Art, 226]
JSVM Plywood Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 209 DTR 166 / 324 CTR 228 (Gau.)(HC)S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issuing of notice-Natural justice-Not considered the material available on record passed order, needs to be set aside for consideration. [S. 148, 148(d), Art. 226]
Lalit Kumar Poddar v. ITO (2022) 213 DTR 343 / 326 CTR 659 (Delhi)(HC)S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice issued in the name of a dead person-Reassessment was invalid .[S. 144, 147, Art. 226]
Late Shobha Mehta (Through Legal Heir Sh. Kanhaya Lal Mehta) v. ACIT (2022) 218 DTR 262/(2023) 335 CTR 1110 (Raj.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Penny stock-Information from investigation wing-Fresh material-No change of opinion-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 148, 151, Art. 226]
Mamta Gupta v. NFAC (2022) 217 DTR 54 (Delhi)(HC)