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. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal-Duties-Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Comparable-Government companies-Directions issued to Tribunal to consider other grounds of appeal. [S. 92CA, 254(2), Art. 226]

Jacob Engineering India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 262 / 285 Taxman 326 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 192 : Deduction at source-Salary-Fees for professional or technical services-In house consultants-Assessee in default-Incentive policy adopted by company-Orders of Tribunal was set aside. [S. 194J, 201(1), 201(IA)]

Hosmat Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (TDS) (2022) 440 ITR 149 (Karn.) (HC) Editorial : Order of Tribunal in Hosmat Hospital Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (TDS)(2016) 50 ITR 70 (SN) (Bang) (Trib) set aside.

S. 154 : Rectification of mistake-Violation of principle of natural justice-Not responding to notices-Last notice did not give sufficient time reply-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 142(1), 143(3), Art. 226]

Chams Branding Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 602 / 209 DTR 444 / 324 CTR 119 / 284 Taxman 548 (Ker.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Pendency of assessment-Time limit for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired-Notice issued for reassessment was quashed. [S. 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3), 147]

Loku Ram Malik v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 159 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Constitutional validity-The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021-Directions issued. [Art. 226]

Jagdish Kumar Basantani v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 39 (MP)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-No tangible material-Not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Sri Jagannath Promoters and Builders v. Dy. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 192 / 209 DTR 188 / 324 CTR 233 / 284 Taxman 469 (Ori.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Notice was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

N. S. Srinivasan v. ACIT (NO. 2) (2022) 440 ITR 376 / 211 DTR 316 / 325 CTR 511 / 284 Taxman 42 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : decision of single judge in N. S. Srinivasan v. ACIT (NO. 1) (2022) 440 ITR 367 / 325 CTR 521(Mad)(HC) is reversed

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Penny stock-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was held to be not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Priti Paras Savla v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Depreciation-Technical error by Auditor-Notice to withdraw the depreciation was held to be not valid. [S. 32, 148, Form No 3CD, Art. 226]

Baroque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 463 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No tangible material-Non-Resident-Not offering the interest and bonus received on surrender of policy before maturity-Provision of Section 80CC(2) is not applicable-Reassessment was quashed [S. 10(10)(d), 80CC(2), 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

AMI Ashish Shah v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 417 / 212 DTR 14/ 328 CTR 562 (Guj.)(HC)