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. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Adequate opportunity of hearing not given-Order of assessment is not valid-Order is set aside. [Art. 226]

Estra Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. NFACA (2022) 442 ITR 112 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Opportunity of personal hearing not granted and reply of assessee is not considered-Violation of principle of natural justice-The word may in section 144B(7)(viii) should be read as must or shall and requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing is mandatory-Matter remanded. [S. 142(1) 143(3 156, Art. 226]

Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. UOI (2022)442 ITR 101 / 285 Taxman 447 / 211 DTR 10 / 325 CTR 252 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144 : Best judgment assessment-Names struck off from Register of Companies-Grant of time to respondents to file counter-Affidavits-Assessment order stayed. [S. 147, Art. 226]

Kaushik Kumar Gupta v. ITO (2022) 442 ITR 449 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Permanent account number-Draft assessment order-Amalgamation-Observation made by single judge is vacated-Assessee relegated to statutory remedy of appeal to be decided on merits. [S. 139A(5), 144C, Art. 226]

Mando Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (NO. 2) (2022) 442 ITR 443 / 214 DTR 121/ 327 CTR 644Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Mando Automotive India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (NO. 1) (2022)442 ITR 433/ 214 DTR 127 / 327 CTR 651/ 138 taxmann.com 340 (Mad) (HC) order of single judge is affirmed with deleting observations on merits.

S. 132 : Search and Seizure-Right to livelihood-Issuance of look out Circular on mere suspicion that assessee had bank accounts and investments in other countries-Cannot be basis for holding that assessee being allowed to travel abroad would be detrimental to the economic interests of India-Absence of proceedings under any penal law being initiated against assessee at relevant point of time —Indefinite continuance of look out circular on mere suspicion-Infringement of right to livelihood [Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of tax Act, 2015 and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Art. 21, 226]

Vikas Chaudhary v. UOI (2022) 442 ITR 119 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 80P : Co-operative societies-Interest earned from deposits in other Co-Operative Banks-Entitled to deduction-Interest on deposits in Treasury-Not entitled to deduction. [S. 80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(2)(d)]

PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 141/ 217 DTR 246 / 328 CTR 443(Ker.)(HC) PCIT v. Vilappil Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 141/ 217 DTR 246/ 328 CTR 443 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 80IA : Industrial undertakings-Infrastructure development-Operation and maintenance of Multi-Purpose berth in Port —Letter issued and agreement with Port authorities would satisfy requirement of law. [S. 119]

PCIT v. T. M. International Logistic Ltd. (2022) 442 ITR 87 / 211 DTR 281 / 325 CTR 462 / 286 Taxman 101 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 54 : Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Residential property standing in name of wife cannot be considered to be owned by assessee-Difference between section. 54 and section. 54F-Specified Bonds-Assessee can claim exemption under Section 54 as well as section 54EC. [S. 27, 45, 54EC, 54F, Hindu Succession Act 1956, S. 14]

Antony Parakal Kurian v. ACIT (2022) 442 ITR 38 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 49 : Capital gains-Previous owner-Cost of acquisition-Capital asset acquired by will-Indexation-Cost of acquisition to be calculated taking into account cost of acquisition of previous owner of asset. [S. 2(29A), 2(42A), 45, 48, 55(1)(b)(2)(ii), Art. 226]

Rohan Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO(IT) (2022)442 ITR 404 / 211 DTR 164 / 325 CTR 395 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 48 : Capital gains-Computation-Full value of consideration-Adoption of fair market value based on guidelines issued by Government is justified. [S. 45, 50D]

PCIT v. Sarojini M. Kushe (Smt.) (2022) 442 ITR 327 / 210 DTR 172 / 286 Taxman 253 (Karn.)(HC)