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-Wrong recording of reasons-Recorded reasons refers sale of property-Non application of mind-Notice and order was quashed and set aside. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Rajasthan Udyog and Tools Private Limited v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order was quashed. [S. 115JB, 148, Art. 226]

John Cockerill India Limited v. UOI (Bom.)(HC) (UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Weighted deduction-Recorded reasons-Added in the assessment order-No failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts-Failure to deal with the objections raised by the petitioner-Reassessment notice and subsequent order was quashed. [S. 35(2AB), 148, Art. 226]

Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Waiver of loan-Change of opinion-Query raised during regular assessment proceedings-Order of Tribunal affirmed. [S. 28(iv), 41(1), 148]

PCIT v. EPC Industries Ltd. (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Quarries raised during assessment proceedings-Notice is held to be bad in law and quashed. [S. 148, Rule 11UA, Art. 226]

Naroli Resorts Private Limited v. ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Not dealt with any of the submissions-Referred 68 case laws without stating how the case laws are applicable to the facts of the petitioner-Reassessment notice is bad in law [S. 148, Art. 226]

Hitech Corporation Ltd. (Formerly known as Hitech Plast Ltd.) v.  ACIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Deemed dividend-No failure to disclose truly and fully material facts-Referred 68 cases laws however not stated how case laws are applicable to the facts-The Order was quashed by observing that the Faceless Assessing Officer has wasted his time in writing unsustainable order on objects. [S. 2(22)(e), 148, Art. 226]

Hanwant Manbir Singh v. Dy. CIT (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Demerger-Notice not specifying failure to disclose any material facts truly and fully by assessee-Notice and subsequent order invalid. [S. 148, 263, Companies Act, 1956, S. 391 to394, Art. 226]

Coca-Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Bom)(HC)(UR)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Order passed without considering petitioners submission-Reasonable time not given to respond to show cause notice-Order and subsequent notices quashed-levied cost on the Assessing Officer Rs. 25,000 to be deposited to PM Cares Fund.[S.142(1), 143(3), 156, S.270A, 217AAC, Art. 226]

Parag Kishorchandra Shah v. NFAC (Bom.)(HC)(UR)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Show cause notice was never served upon the petitioner-Natural justice-Personal hearing shall be issued at least seven working days in advance-Stricture-Harassment to assessee-Wasting precious judicial time and unnecessary expenditure on lawyers-The court held that the conduct of Assessing Officer was unacceptable and issuing of show cause notice cannot be just an empty formality. [S. 147,148, Art. 226]

Chetan D. Divekar v.  NFAC  (Bom)(HC)(UR)