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. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business expenditure-Prior period expenses-Revisional authority must come to a finding that order of assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue-Writ petition against Revisional order is allowed. [S. 37(1) 143(3), Art. 226]

CMJ Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)468 ITR 695 (Gauhati)(HC)

S. 260A : Appeal-High Court-Transfer pricing adjustment-Assessing Officer has given effect to the order of Tribunal-No substantial question of law survived for consideration. [S.92CA, 254(1)]

PCIT v. Cookson India Pvt. Ltd. (2024)468 ITR 35 (Cal)(HC)

S. 251 : Appeal-Commissioner (Appeals)-Powers-Enhancement-Assessment cannot be enhanced without notice to assessee-Matter is remanded back to the file of CIT(A). [S. 250, 251(2)), 260A]

Meetu Bansal v. Dy. CIT (2024)468 ITR 271/ 151 taxmann.com 524 (Uttarakhand)(HC)

S. 245R : Advance rulings-Non-Resident-Entitlement to benefits under double taxation avoidance agreement-Transfer of shares-Transfer of shares in foreign company by non-resident assessee to another non-resident company-Treat shopping-Mere routing of investments through Mauritius cannot result in drawing adverse inference or raise presumption of illegality or treaty abuse-Order of Authority for Advance Rulings denying benefits illegal and unsustainable-Instructions of Central Board Of Direct Taxes-Certificate of residence issued by Mauritius Authorities would constitute sufficient and valid evidence-Circular No. 682, Dated 30-3-1994 (1994) 207 ITR (St) 7, Circular No. 789, Dated 13-4-2000 (2000) 243 ITR (St) 57-Applicant is not liable to tax on capital gains on transfer of shares to another non-resident-Treaty will prevail over provisions of Act-Legal Fiction Comprised In Article 27A-Subsidiaries have distinct and independent persona-Order of Authority for Advance Rulings holding that Article 13(3A) applicable only to sale of shares of resident company assessee not covered by Article 13(3A) is unsustainable-Economic substance-Assessee Transferring shares on which investments were made from capital contributions of its shareholders-Extent of investments, holding period and dividend declared to shareholders proving that contention of revenue that assessee lacked economic substance erroneous-Beneficial owner-Concept of beneficial owner gets attracted only if recipient of income or holder of asset mere depository-No finding that income controlled and regulated by third party-Allegation of revenue that sum earned from transfer of shares being beneficially held by assessee is misconceived and untenable-Resolution of Board-Power conferred on certain individuals to operate bank accounts-No payments authorised without concurrence of members of Board Of Directors-Merely because two members of board were connected with larger conglomerate it could not be held that assessees were reduced to mere puppets-Avoidance of tax-Company-Corporate entity-Non-Resident-Lifting of corporate veil-Department must first establish treaty abuse-Share transaction duly grand fathered by virtue of Article 13(3A)-Order of Authority For Advance Rulings holding that share transaction aimed at tax avoidance arbitrary and illegal-Assessee is entitled to benefits under Article 13(3A) of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Domestic legislation cannot be interpreted in manner to be in direct conflict with Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement provision or with over-riding effect over provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement-DTAA-India-Mauritius.[S. 45 90, 119,245R(2) Art.13(3) 13(3A), 27A]

Tiger Global International III Holdings v. AAR (2024)468 ITR 405/ 165 taxmann.com 850/341 CTR 713 (Delhi)(HC) Tiger Global International II Holdings v. AAR (2024)468 ITR 405/ 165 taxmann.com 850/341 CTR 713 (Delhi)(HC) Tiger Global International IV Holdings v. AAR (2024)468 ITR 405/ 165 taxmann.com 850/ 341 CTR 713 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : Refer, Tiger Global International Ii Holdings, Mauritius, In Re (2020) 429 ITR 288 / 116 taxmann.com 878 / 189 DTR 90 / 315 CTR 160 (AAR)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Additional conditions imposed by Central Board Of Direct Taxes through circular is not valid-Circulars cannot override provisions of Act.[S.119, 245D, Art.226]

Vishwakarma Developers v. CBDT (2024)468 ITR 686 / 165 taxmann.com 391 (Bom)(HC)

S. 245C : Settlement Commission-Settlement of cases-Conditions-Case pending-Settlement Commission inoperative with effect from 1-2-2021-Establishment of Interim Board-Notification restricting filing of application before interim Board for settlement by assessees eligible on 31-1-2021-Settlement Commission legally existed till 31-3-2021-Last date mentioned in Notification should read as 31-3-2021-Orders rejecting applications quashed-Matters remanded to interim Board for consideration-Amendment in law-Legislative intent. [S.245A(b), Art.226]

Vetrivel Infrastructure v.Dy. CIT (2024)468 ITR 665 / 164 taxmann.com 123 (Guj)(HC)

S. 244A : Refunds-Interest on refunds-Non-Functionality of Department’s Portal-Amalgamation-Delay was not attributable to assessee-Entitled to additional interest-Interpretation of Taxing Statutes-Application of principles of equity. [S.153(5), 244A(1), 250, Art. 226]

Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)468 ITR 378 / 160 taxmann.com 268 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Failure to furnish approval of Designated Authority along with reasons recorded-Non application of mind-Notice and order disposing of objections is set aside.[S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 468 ITR 5/ 158 taxmann.com 63 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed, ITO v. Tia Enterprises Pvt. Ltd(2024) 468 ITR 10(SC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued after four or three years-Specified Authority for approval-Approval granted by Joint Commissioner-The authority statutorily empowered to confer approval would be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner-Notice and reassessment proceedings invalid.[S. 147, 148,148A(b), 148A(d), 151(ii)-Taxation And Other Laws (Relaxation And Amendment Of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3. Art. 226]

Balkrishna Barsha Sutar v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 348 (Bom)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Notice issued after four or three years-Specified Authority for approval-Approval granted by Joint Commissioner-The authority statutorily empowered to confer approval would be the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner-Notice and reassessment proceedings invalid.[S. 147, 148,-Taxation And Other Laws (Relaxation And Amendment Of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, S. 3. Art. 226]

Abhinav Jindal HUF v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 787/ 166 taxmann.com 536 (Delhi)(HC)