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-Unexplained investments-Shares-SEBI registered broker-Information was not reported by the Assessing Officer of Vishesht Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. (VFSPL) to assessee’s Assessing Officer-Notice was set aside and matter was to be remanded to Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order-Matter remanded. [S. 69, 147, 148, 148A(d), Art. 226]

South Asian Stocks Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 289 Taxman 33 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Survey-Bogus share capital-Share premium-Reopening notice issued on 20-7-2022-income alleged to have escaped more than Rs. 50 lakhs-Reopening notice was not time barred. [S. 68, 133A, 148, 149(1)(b), Art. 226]

Touchstone Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2022) 289 Taxman 462 / 218 DTR 241 / 329 CTR 231 / (2023)451 ITR 196 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Opportunity of hearing-Invested in penny scrips of two companies-A notice even if stated to be under section 148A(b) would be treated as a notice of enquiry under section 148A(a) if it contained questionnaire instead of information-Matter remanded. [S. 69, 148A(b), Art, 226]

Swal Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 289 Taxman 246 / 217 DTR 287 / 328 CTR 370 /(2023) 450 ITR 148 (Cal.)(HC)/Editorial : Decision of single judge reversed , Swal Ltd. v UOI (2022) 217 DTR 286 (Cal) (HC) / 328 CTR 369 ( Cal )(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without granting adequate time to fie reply-Order was set aside-Matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer for decision fresh. [S. 148, 148A(d), Art. 226]

Bird Worldwide Flight Services (I.) (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 289 Taxman 652 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Fake invoices-Input credit-Unexplained expenditure-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 69C, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Barbrik Projects Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 289 Taxman 534 /(2023) 330 CTR 23/ /20 ITR -OL 593 (Chhattisgarh)(HC)Editorial : Affirmed by division Bench , Barbrik Projects Ltd.v. UOI (2023) 330 CTR 6 /453 ITR 355 /(Chhattisgarh)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Merger-Information about merger of company was intimated in original return of income filed-Notice issued in name of non-existing company-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, Art. 226]

Neo Structo Construction (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 289 Taxman 698 / (2023)451 ITR 510(Guj.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Dead person-Notice issued for commencement of assessment or re-assessment proceedings against dead person is null and void. [S. 147, Art. 226]

Himadri Kandarp Mehta v. ITO (2022) 289 Taxman 514/ (2023) 457 ITR 92 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Business expenditure-Increase in freight charges vis-a-vis purchases-Change of opinion-No new material-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 37(1), 148]

PCIT v. West Bengal Essential Commodities Supply Corporation Ltd. (2022) 289 Taxman 113 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash deposit in bank-Denomination-Pendency of appeal-limited scrutiny-. No question was asked in the original assessment proceedings-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 69A, 148, Art. 226]

Sunil Jain. v. ITD (2022) 289 Taxman 688/ 20 ITR -OL409 (Delhi)(HC)/Editorial : SLP dismissed , Sunil Jain v. ITD (2023) 459 ITR 276 /295 Taxman 10(SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-SEB price used as indicator of realizable value of power for claim-Assessing Officer had elaborately questioned assessee on very same issue during scrutiny assessment and assessee had submitted relevant details and documents-No fresh material-Reassessment for review of original assessment is not valid. [S. 80IA, 148]

PCIT v. Graphite India Ltd. (2022) 289 Taxman 118 (Cal.)(HC)