Section 143(3)

Section 143(3) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 143(3), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Sarla Holdings P Ltd v PCIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
  No, if the return itself did not opt. Section 115BAA(5) requires the option to be exercised in the prescribed manner on or before the s.139(1) due date, and Circular 6/2022 condones only a late Form 10-IC where the option was in fact exercised in the return. A company that marked 'None of the above' cannot claim the benefit later, and s.115JB applies.
• PCIT v M P Entertainment and Developers P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  We run a shopping mall. Is the income business income or income from house property?
  Business income, on these facts. Applying Sultan Brothers, the Supreme Court dismissed the revenue's SLP: the company's objects covered constructing, owning, developing, managing, running, hiring, letting out and leasing malls and multiplexes, and its actual activity matched them, so the letting was the doing of business under s.28.
• Mangalam Publications v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  You filed without books because they were seized. Is that a failure to disclose?
  Not where the primary facts were disclosed some other way. The duty to disclose does not extend beyond primary facts; once they are disclosed, the burden shifts to the officer to draw the right inferences. The reassessments were quashed.
• NFAC v Automotive Manufacturers P Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both waysJudgment not reachable
  The faceless order came without any show-cause notice or draft order. Will it just be annulled?
  No — expect a remand. The Supreme Court accepted that making a variation without serving the show-cause notice and draft assessment order breached s.144B and the principles of natural justice, but held the High Court should have sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order rather than simply setting the assessment aside.
• Dy CIT v Mastech Technologies P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  The AO who issued my 148 notice was transferred and his successor issued another. Is the reassessment time-barred?
  No. Section 129 lets the successor continue the proceeding from the stage at which the predecessor left it, so the later notice was a continuation and not an abandonment of the first. Limitation is tested against the first notice, and the Supreme Court reversed the High Court's contrary view.
• ACIT v Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  We charge fees for our public utility work. Does that cost us charitable status under s.2(15)?
  Only if the fees are pitched above cost. Charging on a cost or nominal mark-up basis is not trade, commerce or business; charges noticeably higher than cost are. Even permissible commercial activity must be carried on in the actual course of achieving the general public utility object, and receipts from it must stay within 20 per cent of total receipts.
• PCIT v Mahagun Realtors P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  Is an assessment on an amalgamated company always void?
  No. Corporate death on amalgamation does not by itself invalidate an assessment — it depends on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts, including whether the department was told and how you conducted yourself. Maruti Suzuki was distinguished.
• PCIT v I-Ven Interactive Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  I moved my registered office and put the new address on my return and in Form 18 with the Registrar of Companies. The scrutiny notice went to the old address. Is the assessment bad?
  No. The Supreme Court held that a notice under section 143(2) sent within the prescribed time to the address in the PAN database is sufficient compliance, and actual service afterwards is immaterial. Filing Form 18 with the Registrar of Companies is not intimation to the assessing officer, and merely showing the new address in the return is not enough. The assessee must apply to have the PAN database changed, because scrutiny notices are generated by an automated system that picks the address from PAN. The appeal was allowed and the matter remanded to the CIT (Appeals) to decide the other grounds on merits.
• CIT v Laxman Das Khandelwal Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  No s.143(2) notice was issued at all. Does s.292BB save the assessment?
  No. The notice is a jurisdictional requirement and its complete absence makes the assessment void. Section 292BB is a fiction about service — for it to apply, the notice must have emanated from the department in the first place.
• PCIT v S.G. Asia Holdings (India) Pvt Ltd Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer worked out the arm's length price himself and added to my income without ever sending the transaction to the Transfer Pricing Officer. Is that adjustment good?
  No, but it does not follow that you keep the money. The Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer breached the Board's mandatory instructions by not making the reference, so the adjustment could not stand as made. It then refused the Tribunal's remedy of simply deleting the adjustment, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer so that the reference could be made and the Transfer Pricing Officer could do the work. The defect is one of procedure and the Court cured it by sending the file back.
• Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v Bharat V. Patel Supreme CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  The Assessing Officer wants to tax what my client received on redemption of stock appreciation rights granted by the foreign parent as a perquisite. Is there Supreme Court authority on this?
  There is, but read the year carefully. For a redemption before 1 April 2000 the Supreme Court held the amount was not taxable: it fell within clause (iiia) of s.17(2), which was inserted by the Finance Act 1999 with effect from 1 April 2000 and was not retrospective, and it could not be forced into s.17(2)(iii) or s.28(iv). The Court held that a receipt must be made taxable before it can be treated as income.
• CIT v Spice Enfotainment Ltd Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The company I represent amalgamated years ago, the department knew about it, and the assessment order still came in the old company's name. Is that order void, or can the department call it a curable slip?
  Void. The Delhi High Court held that once a company amalgamates and is dissolved it ceases to exist, and no assessment can be framed against it. Framing an assessment on a non-existent entity goes to the root of the matter: it is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural irregularity, and section 292B cannot cure it, because that section reaches only technical defects or omissions. Participation by the successor makes no difference. The Supreme Court dismissed the department's appeals on 2 November 2017 without disturbing that reasoning.
• Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my rectification application to the Tribunal within four years but it took years to decide it. Can the order be set aside because it was passed after the four years were up?
  No. The Supreme Court held that section 254(2) has two parts. The first is the Tribunal's own power to rectify at any time within four years of its order. The second deals with rectification on an application by the assessee or the Assessing Officer pointing out a mistake apparent from the record. Where the application is made within four years, the Tribunal is bound to decide it on the merits, and the fact that it took its own time to dispose of it does not make the order bad. The High Court had erred in holding the application could not be entertained beyond four years. The Court agreed with the Rajasthan High Court in Harshvardhan Chemicals and Minerals Ltd.
• ACIT v Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd Supreme CourtHelps department
  My return was only processed under 143(1). Does that stop the department reopening it later?
  No. An intimation under s.143(1) is not an assessment, so it does not bar the officer from later starting reassessment proceedings.
• Tin Box Company v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The AO never heard me but the CIT(A) did. Does the appeal cure the defect?
  No. Failure to follow the principles of natural justice at the assessment stage cannot be made good in an appeal. Once it is found that the officer did not give the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, the assessment order is to be set aside and the matter remanded to the officer for a fresh assessment after a proper opportunity.
• Kalyan Kumar Ray v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  My assessment order does not compute the tax — the figures are only on the ITNS-150. Does that make the assessment bad?
  No, and the argument runs the other way from how it is often quoted. A three-Judge Bench rejected the submission that Form ITNS-150 is not part of the assessment order. The form is itself a form for determination of tax payable, and when signed or initialled by the officer it is an order in writing determining the tax within the meaning of s.143(3), to be treated as part of the assessment order in the wider sense. The assessee lost.
• Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  They have a letter from a bank that you have never seen. Can they use it against you?
  No. Material collected behind your back and relied on against you must be disclosed to you, with an opportunity to meet it. Because the bank's letter was never shown to the assessee, the addition could not stand.
• C. Vasantlal and Co v CIT Supreme CourtHelps department
  The Income-tax Officer examined witnesses behind my back and used their statements against me. Is that material evidence at all?
  It can be, provided it is disclosed to you. The Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Officer is not bound by the technical rules of the law of evidence and may collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry, but if he wishes to use it he must inform the assessee of the material and give an adequate opportunity to explain it. Here nothing showed the material had been withheld, and in any event the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had summoned the two witnesses and allowed cross-examination. The Tribunal was therefore free to rely on their earlier statements and to disbelieve the later ones.
• Mehta Parikh & Co v CIT Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  The officer accepted my books but still says I could not have held that much cash in high denomination notes, and has added part of it as undisclosed income. Can he do that?
  No. The Supreme Court held the addition was based on no evidence and set it aside. The cash book entries had been accepted as correct and the three affidavits explaining the receipt of notes were never challenged by cross-examination, so the Revenue could not question either. On that material it was within the range of possibility that the firm held the 61 notes, and an imaginary calculation could not displace the explanation. The Tribunal, having accepted the explanation for 31 notes, had no reason to reject it for the other 30; that was a rule of thumb and pure surmise. The High Court was wrong to treat the finding as an unassailable finding of fact.
• Dhakeswari Cotton Mills v CIT Supreme CourtCuts both ways
  Can the Assessing Officer estimate income on departmental material the assessee has never been shown?
  The officer estimated gross profit by comparing the assessee with other mills, without disclosing the comparative data or letting the assessee lead rebuttal evidence. The Supreme Court set the assessment aside, holding that an estimate cannot rest on pure guess and that the material relied on must be disclosed to the assessee. It is the foundational Indian authority on natural justice at the assessment stage.
• High Vista Buildcon P Ltd v NFAC High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I asked NFAC for a video hearing in my appeal and never got a link. Can that order stand?
  No. A virtual hearing is mandatory once it is specifically requested in faceless appellate proceedings, and passing the appellate order without ever providing the video-conference link violated natural justice. The order was set aside, the appeal restored for a proper virtual hearing, and the consequential penalty orders under ss.271AAC(1) and 270A were quashed with it.
• Vijaya Agro Traders v ITO High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The faceless unit has disallowed my purchases for not deducting under s.194Q and has said nothing at all about the Board's circular I quoted in my reply. Is that enough to get the order set aside?
  Yes. The Karnataka High Court set aside an order under s.143(3) read with s.144B, made in a s.194Q scrutiny, on the single ground that CBDT Circular No. 13/2021 had not been considered or appreciated by the assessing unit, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in the light of that circular. Guidelines issued under s.194Q(3) are issued with the approval of the Central Government and the officer is not free to pass over them in silence.
• Kern Enterprise Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My client's New Zealand company filed Indian returns and paid tax believing its place of effective management was in India, and New Zealand has since taxed the same income. Can it get the Indian tax back?
  Yes, on these facts. The Madras High Court quashed the order refusing rectification and refund, holding that CBDT Circular No. 8 of 2017 — under which section 6(3)(ii) does not apply to a company with turnover or gross receipts of Rs 50 crore or less in a financial year — is binding on the Department, so the company was not liable to Indian tax at all and the tax it had paid ought to have been refunded, with the Court adding that tax paid in excess must be refunded notwithstanding the procedure in section 155(14A) where the income was taxed in a foreign country.
• CIT (International Taxation) v Nidra Hospitality Gujarat Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The officer says I am in default under s.201 for not deducting under s.195 on payments abroad, although I have a Form 15CB from my chartered accountant for every remittance. Is that enough?
  On these facts, yes. The Gujarat High Court declined to admit the Revenue's appeal, holding that once the assessee had filed its TDS returns and submitted Form 15CB — the accountant's certificate on liability to deduct under Chapter XVII-B prescribed by Rule 37BB — for each remittance, and the Assessing Officer had not disputed those, the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under s.201. The Court also held that commission paid to travel agents and on hotel bookings made through websites and subsidiaries was not a sum covered by s.195.
• Bedmutha Industries Ltd v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer refused me s.244A interest for the years the refund sat unpaid, saying my bank details were wrong. Can he do that on his own?
  No. Section 244A(2) allows a period to be excluded only where a question arises as to the period to be excluded, and that question must be decided by the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Commissioner or Commissioner — the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to decide it and deny interest on that basis. Further, the delay contemplated by s.244A(2) is delay in the proceedings resulting in the refund, meaning the s.143(1) intimation and the s.143(3) assessment, not administrative delay in remitting a refund already determined.
• Gstaad Hotels Pvt Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My section 35AD deduction was examined and allowed in scrutiny. Four years later the department wants to reopen and treat part of it as revenue expenditure so the loss runs under section 72 for eight years instead of indefinitely under section 73A. Can it?
  Not on these facts. The Bombay High Court quashed the s.148 notice, the two orders disposing of objections and all consequential proceedings, holding that where the original assessment was completed under s.143(3) and the reopening is beyond four years, the first proviso to s.147 requires a failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and a bald assertion of such failure without identifying which fact was not disclosed will not do. The Court expressly did not decide whether the expenditure was capital or revenue.
• Benteler Automotive India Pvt Ltd v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The DRP issued its directions years ago and the Assessing Officer has still not passed a final assessment order. Is the assessment now dead, or can he pass one whenever he likes?
  It is dead. Section 144C(13) requires the Assessing Officer, on receipt of the DRP's directions under s.144C(5), to complete the assessment in conformity with them within one month from the end of the month in which the directions are received, and he need not give any further hearing. Where that month passed — here even after the extension of the outer date under the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act 2020 — and no order was passed, the Bombay High Court held the assessment barred by limitation and quashed the pending proceedings on the assessee's writ petition.
• Surajit Ghosh v ITO, Ward-29(4), Kolkata High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  A section 154 order was passed on me in 2022 rectifying a 2015 assessment, with no notice and no DIN. What can I do about it four years later?
  The Calcutta High Court set the order aside. An order passed beyond the four years in s.154(7) suffers from a jurisdictional error, so it can be challenged in writ even after long delay, and the Court also recorded the Department's failure to comply with s.154(3) by not showing that any prior notice was served, and the absence of a Document Identification Number required by the CBDT circular dated 14 August 2019.
• Saroj Kumar Sahoo v National Faceless Assessment Centre High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My scrutiny assessment was still running when they searched me in November 2024. Section 158BA(2) says a pending assessment abates. Can I have the assessment order quashed in a writ on that ground alone?
  Not on that ground alone. The Orissa High Court accepted that a search initiated on or after 1 September 2024 puts the case in the revived block assessment regime of Chapter XIV-B and that s.158BA(2) abates a pending assessment for any year in the block period, but it refused to quash the order because nothing on the record showed that the search had unearthed any undisclosed income of this petitioner, and it relegated him to his appeal.
• M/s Sivasakthi Threads v Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  A survey during a search on a connected group threw up excess stock, and it was added for AY 2007-08. The department says my unabsorbed depreciation cannot be set off against it, and now cites section 79A. Is that right?
  No, on both counts, for a year before AY 2022-23. The Madras High Court held that unabsorbed depreciation carried forward takes the character of current year depreciation under s.32(2) and, read with ss.71 and 72, can be set off against income of the current year other than capital gains — including an addition of unaccounted stock in business; and it recorded that s.79A, inserted by the Finance Act 2022 with effect from 1 April 2022, does not assist the Revenue for an earlier year.
• Mohammed Kaleem Ullah v Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  My client's return has been picked up for scrutiny and he now wants to put things right by filing an updated return. Can he still do it?
  No. The Telangana High Court held that clause (b) of the third proviso to s.139(8A) means what it says: no updated return may be furnished for an assessment year where any proceeding for assessment, reassessment, recomputation or revision is pending or has been completed for that year in the assessee's case. The petitioner's case had been selected for scrutiny under CASS by a notice under s.143(2), so the Assessing Officer was right to reject his request to file an updated return, and the writ petition against the assessment order was dismissed with liberty to pursue the appeal.
• K2 Family Private Trust v DCIT — the return utility cannot block the set-off order the assessee is entitled to claim High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The e-filing utility forces my client's STT-paid short-term loss against STT-paid gains first and will not let him claim the sequence he wants. Is his only option to file the return the utility's way and argue later?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that the procedure of filing a return cannot bar an assessee from making a claim under the Act which he feels he is entitled to, and directed the CBDT to modify the utility so that the petitioner could set off the STT-paid short-term capital loss against the non-STT short-term capital gains first, failing which the Assessing Officer was to accept a revised return for AY 2025-26 in paper mode.
• PCIT v KRBL Infrastructure Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The officer accepts my lender exists but says the lender's own purchases were bogus. Do I have to explain where the lender got the money?
  No, not for an assessment year before 2023-24. Once identity, creditworthiness and genuineness are established the assessee does not have to prove the genuineness of the funds in the lender's hands, and the officer cannot travel into the lender's own purchases without material connecting them to the assessee. The requirement to explain the source of the source of a loan came in with the Finance Act 2022 and operates from assessment year 2023-24.
• Arris Estates P Ltd v Assessment Unit High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Department admits it refused the video hearing but says limitation was about to expire. Is that a defence?
  No. The Gujarat High Court quashed an assessment where the request for a video conference hearing made on 4 March 2024 was not granted and the order followed on 15 March 2024, rejecting the plea that earlier adjournments had left the Department no time before the 31 March deadline.
• Columbia Global Center in India v ITO (Exemptions), Ward-1(2), Mumbai High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My trust filed Form 10 only after the scrutiny notice came — 338 days after the due date. The Commissioner refused to condone under s.119(2)(b). Is that the end of the accumulation claim?
  No. Where the substantive conditions of s.11(2) are met — the accumulation is disclosed in the return, the Board resolution and the Form 10B audit report before the s.139(1) due date, the money is invested in a s.11(5) mode and is actually applied within the permitted period — the Bombay High Court held that a liberal view must be taken and the delay in filing Form 10 condoned. The refusal order under s.119(2)(b) was quashed and the delay condoned by the Court itself.
• Man Truck & Bus India P. Ltd. v Assessment Unit High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My APA was signed after the assessment and I filed a modified return under s.92CD(1) offering a smaller figure. The officer has levied s.270A penalty on the pre-APA assessed income. Is there anything I can do about it now?
  The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief on exactly that grievance, finding force in the contention that penalty, if it lies at all, cannot be worked out on the pre-APA assessment order but must be worked out on the modified return filed under s.92CD(1). The penalty order was stayed and recovery restrained. It is an interim order only; the point has not been decided.
• PCIT v Praveen Sawhney High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The Department says my search assessment is in time because it made a reference to a foreign tax authority and gets a year excluded under s.153B. The reference was for years the treaty did not cover. Does the exclusion still apply?
  No. Clause (ix) of the Explanation to s.153B excludes the time taken on a reference for exchange of information only where the reference is made in terms of the agreement under s.90 or s.90A. A request made outside what the treaty permitted is not such a reference, gives no exclusion, and the assessments were time-barred. Twenty-nine Revenue appeals were dismissed.
• PCIT-1, Chennai v M/s. British Agro Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
  I grow button mushrooms in trays under controlled temperature in a shed and claim the income as agricultural income under s.10(1). The Assessing Officer says it is business income. Where does that stand?
  Against you, in the Madras High Court. The Court held that income from the sale of white button mushrooms grown in a factory under controlled conditions does not fall within any of the three limbs of s.2(1A) and so is not exempt under s.10(1), allowed the Revenue's appeals and answered both substantial questions against the assessee. That result is squarely opposed to the Hyderabad Special Bench in DCIT v. Inventaa Industries Pvt. Ltd., which the Tribunal below had followed, and appeals against Inventaa were recorded as still pending before the Telangana High Court.
• Technovaa Plastic Industries Private Limited v Central Board of Direct Taxes High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The resolution professional never filed the company's returns during the insolvency process. The new management filed them late and the carry forward of losses has gone. Will the Board condone the delay?
  It must, on these facts. The Gujarat High Court quashed the Board's order refusing condonation under s.119(2)(b) for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and condoned the delay itself, holding that where the suspended management had lost all powers from the date of admission under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and the resolution professional had neither had the accounts audited nor filed the returns, and the new management filed them promptly after the resolution plan was approved, refusing condonation would frustrate the very purpose of the approved resolution plan and would amount to genuine hardship.
• Raj Kumar Bothra v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  CPC disallowed my late-deposited PF and ESI under 143(1)(a). Was a summary adjustment even open to them?
  No, not for an intimation issued in December 2021. The Chhattisgarh High Court held the issue was genuinely debatable on that date, with conflicting High Court authority and the matter pending in the Supreme Court, so the officer had to take scrutiny under s.143(3) rather than adjust summarily.
• PCIT v Kanak Impex (India) Ltd High CourtHelps department
  The officer says my purchases are accommodation entries. Can he add the whole purchase, or only a percentage?
  The whole of it, if you cannot show the purchases were real. The Bombay High Court set aside the Tribunal's order restricting the addition to a 12.5% profit estimate and restored the Assessing Officer's disallowance of the entire Rs 20.06 crore under s.69C, and the Supreme Court dismissed the assessee's SLP. The profit-element line only runs where the purchases themselves are accepted as having happened.
• PCIT v Sangeeta Jain High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  The Commissioner says my assessment was made without any inquiry. Is that by itself enough to revise it under s.263?
  It depends on which side of the line the file falls. The Delhi High Court restored a revision because the officer had accepted the claim that the land sold was agricultural without verifying it at all. The twin conditions still have to be met, but a complete absence of inquiry satisfies the first of them; an inquiry the Commissioner merely thinks was too thin does not.
• International Hospital Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The department is now citing Mahagun Realtors to say an assessment on the amalgamating company is curable. Has the Supreme Court moved away from Maruti Suzuki?
  On the Delhi High Court's considered view in this batch, no. Mahagun Realtors turned on the conduct of that assessee — who suppressed the amalgamation at search, filed a return in the amalgamating company's name recording 'not applicable' against business reorganisation, and litigated throughout in that name — and did not dilute or strike a discordant chord with Maruti Suzuki. Where the successor did tell the department of the merger and the notice or order still went out in the dead company's name, the defect remains fatal.
• PCIT v Wellman Coke India Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My client's auditor could not upload Form 3CEA with the return and the Assessing Officer has disallowed the whole slump sale loss for that reason alone. Is the report a condition precedent?
  No. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and answered the question against it: furnishing Form 3CEA within the due date for the return is not a mandatory condition, and a report produced during the assessment proceedings before the final order is sufficient compliance. It applied the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. G.M. Knitting Industries Private Limited.
• Munchener Ruckversicherungs Gesellshaft AG v CIT (International Taxation) High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The deductor credited the TDS late, so it turned up in 26AS only after I had filed. The department says I should have revised my return, and refuses credit because I never offered the income to tax. Is there a way back?
  Yes - s.155(14). The Delhi High Court held that s.155(14) places the Assessing Officer under a statutory obligation to amend the assessment or intimation once the certificate or the updated Form 26AS is produced, and that the sub-section neither contemplates nor mandates the original return being amended or revised. It also held that the Commissioner was wrong to require the income to be offered to tax where the assessee had consistently and uncontestedly said the receipt was not taxable in India.
• Kanyakaparameshwari Co-operative Society Ltd v CCIT High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My co-operative society filed its return late and lost section 80P because of section 80AC. If the delay is condoned under section 119(2)(b), does the deduction come back?
  On this Karnataka view, yes. The Court held that section 80AC does not say in express terms that the deduction becomes inadmissible if the delay in filing the return is condoned, so an order under section 119(2)(b) condoning the delay clears the way for the claim. It adopted its earlier decision in Sullia Taluk Womens Multi Purpose Co-operative Society and read the Central Board's circular of 26 July 2023, which directs the authorities to admit and decide condonation applications from audited co-operative societies for assessment years 2018-19 to 2022-23 on the merits. The rejection of the society's application was quashed and the delay condoned, and the Court went on to quash the completed assessment as well and remit the claim for fresh consideration.
• PCIT v Shiv Kumar Nayyar High CourtCuts both ways
  Does a single, same-day approval covering many years and many cases satisfy s.153D, or does it vitiate the assessment?
  The approving authority granted one approval covering assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 and cleared 43 cases in a single day. The Delhi High Court held that approval under s.153D cannot be a ritualistic formality or rubber stamping and must reflect an appropriate application of mind, and upheld the Tribunal's annulment of the search assessments.
• Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The Assessing Officer rejected my books because of a section 40A(3) cash disallowance and an ad hoc disallowance, then raised my gross profit rate. If those two go, can the gross profit addition survive?
  No. The Allahabad High Court held that where the only findings casting doubt on the books were a section 40A(3) disallowance and an ad hoc consignment-sale disallowance, and both fell away, there was nothing left on which to reject the books. Once the books stand accepted there is no intrinsic evidence to enhance the gross profit rate, and the officer must leave it alone, because gross profit is the result of book entries and not an original entry. The officer's jurisdiction is to examine the correctness and completeness of the accounts, not to step into the assessee's shoes and infer more profit. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
• Satish Kumar Bansal HUF v NFAC High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  I asked for a personal hearing in my faceless assessment and never got one. Is the order bad?
  Yes. Allahabad held that once a request is made under s.144B(6)(vii), granting the hearing is mandatory and not discretionary; fixing the rescheduled hearing on a Sunday, the day after the adjournment application, was not a real opportunity.
• Genpact India P Ltd v DCIT High CourtHelps taxpayer
  My refund came out of an appeal effect order and was paid years late. Can the department refuse the extra interest by blaming its own portal?
  No. Where the refund arises from giving effect to an appellate order, the additional interest is statutory. It can be refused only in the one situation the Act allows, namely delay attributable to the assessee. A broken departmental portal, an amalgamation the department was told about, and the pandemic are not delays attributable to the assessee.
• PCIT v DSG Papers (P) Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayer
  The addition rests on statements of ex-employees and third parties I was never allowed to question. Is the assessment good?
  The additions were deleted, but read the High Court decision for what it is. The Chandigarh Tribunal directed deletion of the additions in all five years, holding that the assessee had not been allowed to cross-examine the persons on whose statements the Assessing Officer relied and that the evidence was internally contradictory - invoices said to have been destroyed were recovered from the residence of an ex-president against whom the company had filed an FIR before the search. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the revenue's appeal, but its order is two sentences long and gives no reasons of its own: it adopts a detailed judgment of even date in a companion appeal, ITA-38-2023, which is not on indiankanoon and is not available in a subscription case-law database.
• DLF Home Developers Ltd v National Faceless Assessment Centre High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  Our amalgamation was sanctioned by the NCLT after we had already filed the return, and the AO is pressing on with the assessment on that pre-merger return. Does s.170A stop him?
  The Delhi High Court took the prima facie view that it does. Section 170A is a non-obstante provision obliging the successor in a business reorganisation to file a modified return in the prescribed form and manner, and if the time for filing that modified return has not yet run out, the Assessing Officer cannot proceed with the assessment on the basis of a pre-merger return. The Court stayed the assessment until the end date for the modified return, and on the modified return being filed, disposed of the petition directing that the assessment proceed having regard to it.
• Pr. CIT v Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd — where the accounts depart from the company's own accounting policy, the book profit can be altered High CourtCuts both waysNo later treatment found
  I have always understood that under Apollo Tyres the Assessing Officer cannot touch audited accounts. He says s.115JB is wider than s.115J and that our profit and loss account was not drawn in accordance with our own stated revenue recognition policy. Is there anything in that?
  There is, but note at once how the point comes down: the High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose, so the proposition below is the reasoning of the CIT(A), confirmed by the Tribunal and left undisturbed, and not the High Court's own. The Apollo Tyres bar is not absolute under s.115JB: the net profit can be altered where the profit and loss account was not drawn up in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act, and where the accounting policies and accounting standards were not correctly adopted for the accounts laid before the annual general meeting. On these facts the amount actually recovered had to be recognised as revenue under the company's own stated policy, and Rs.16.01 crores was rightly added to book profit — but the balance of Rs.78.1 crores, not being recovered, was not.
• Mastek Limited v ACIT High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  The officer says my section 154 notice is in time because he is rectifying the order giving effect to the appeal. Is that right where the point was never in appeal?
  The Gujarat High Court said no. Following its own decision in Poonjabhai Vanmalidas, it held that where the issue was not the subject matter of the appeal the appellate order does not subsume the original order, so the time for correcting the mistake relates back to the original order and not to the appellate or appeal effect order. It also held that a notice founded on the interpretation of a Supreme Court decision cannot be a mistake apparent from the record.
• GE Oil & Gas India P Ltd v Addl/Jt/Dy/Asst CIT High CourtCuts both waysPartly overruled — read this first
  You are an eligible assessee with a transfer pricing adjustment and the faceless unit passed a final order instead of a draft. What relief will the court give?
  The order goes, but not always as a clean quashing. The Madras High Court set aside a final order passed three days after the show cause notice cum draft assessment order and directed that the impugned order be treated as a draft assessment order, leaving the assessee to work out its remedies against it under s.144B.
• ACIT v Satish Kumar Keshri High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The search on me turned up nothing but the AO still made additions for an old year. Can he?
  Where the assessment for a year stood completed before the search and nothing was pending to abate, an order under s.153A cannot simply reopen it. A completed assessment can be reassessed under s.153A only on incriminating material found in the search having some nexus to undisclosed income - and the Court left that route open, upholding a remand to the Assessing Officer to reassess if such material exists.
• PCIT v Indravadan Jain, HUF High CourtHelps taxpayerHigh Courts differ
  SEBI has found that the broker rigged the price of the scrip I sold. Does that finding by itself make my capital gain bogus?
  No. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal where the shares had been bought on the floor of the Kolkata Stock Exchange through a registered broker, paid for by cheque, held in demat for more than a year and sold on the floor of the exchange with contract notes and bills produced and the sale proceeds received from the exchange. The Assessing Officer's case was that the scrip was a penny stock, that the broker had been found by SEBI to have manipulated the price through synchronised cross-deals, and that the price had gone from Rs. 3.12 to Rs. 155.04 in two years. That was held not to be enough, because the price manipulation was the broker's conduct and nothing connected the assessee to it.
• Limbabhai Ishwarbhai Jodhani v ACIT (Gujarat High Court) — section 50C fixes the stamp valuation authority's value; the Assessing Officer cannot assume a higher one High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The stamp authority accepted my sale deed at the agricultural land rate and passed a final order on it. The Assessing Officer has reopened on the basis that the open land rate should have applied. Can he assume a valuation above the one the stamp authority itself adopted?
  No. The Gujarat High Court quashed the reopening. Section 50C substitutes the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority, and the Explanation defines 'assessable' as the price that authority would have adopted or assessed if the transfer had been referred to it. On the record the sale deed described the property as agricultural land, the stamp paid had been accepted by the Deputy Collector, Stamp Valuation Department in an order dated 16 October 2017, and the government resolution prescribed a lower rate for agricultural land than for open plots; the officer was therefore trying to assume a valuation beyond the value prescribed by the stamp valuation authority.
• ACIT v Serajuddin & Co High CourtCuts both ways
  What must an approval under s.153D actually show on its face, and does last-minute bulk approval survive?
  Draft search assessments were sent to the Additional CIT two days before limitation expired and approval issued with nothing to show the drafts had been read. The Orissa High Court held that while elaborate reasons are not required, there must be some indication that the approving authority examined the draft orders and found they met the requirements of law. The assessments were held invalid, and the Supreme Court later dismissed the Revenue's SLP.
• PCIT v Sri Venkatesh Granites Pvt Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  The s.271AAB penalty order never says which limb of the definition of undisclosed income is satisfied. Can the penalty survive?
  No. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's penalty order had nowhere specified whether the alleged undisclosed income satisfied the statutory parameters in the Explanation to s.271AAB, and cancelled the penalty for that reason alone. The Telangana High Court agreed and concurred that the penalty, whether at 30 per cent or at the 10 per cent the CIT (Appeals) had substituted, could not be sustained, and held that no question of law arose.

The 60 strongest entries are summarised here. The other 146 entries are listed in full below, and each has its own page.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.