High Court quashed reassessment order u/s 147 noting that it was passed without considering assessee’s detailed reply in response to the notice u/s 148A(b); HC noted that AO gave a lame excuse in the affidavit-in-reply that as the Assessee had submitted irrelevant submissions, AO has not reproduced the submission in the impugned order; HC remarked that impugned order was passed in clear breach of principles of natural justice; HC therefore set aside the reassessment order and restored the matter back to the AO to pass a fresh de-novo order after providing opportunity to assessee.

HC allowed assessee’s appeal observing that provisions of Section 96 of RFCTLARR that provides for exemption from income tax would be applicable to instances where land is acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 (Act of 1956); Reliance placed on SC ruling in Tarsem Singh’s case; Once the compensation is determined under the provisions of RFCTLARR Act, benefits flowing from the provisions of this Act, including exemptions from income tax, etc., contemplated u/s 96 of RFCTLARR Act, would also have to be made applicable; If the benefit flowing from Section 96 is not given to the landlosers whose lands have been acquired under the Act of 1956, it would mean that the landlosers under the enactments are subjected to discrimination.

ITAT directed Revenue to accept assessee’s lease rental income under the head ‘Income from house property’ as against business income, following the principle of consistency; ITAT relied on Bombay HC judgment in Banzai Estates and SC judgment in Radhasoami Satsang and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. wherein the principle of consistency was upheld; Revenue brought nothing on record to show any material change in the impugned transaction, except for the contract renewal, nor was there any material change in the business objects of the Assessee; ITAT rejected Revenue’s reliance on SC judgment in Chennai Properties on facts.

Subsequent ruling of a superior court cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 254(2); Revenue filed MA before the ITAT, subsequent to ITAT order, requesting the Tribunal to recall its order dated September 5, 2022 by placing reliance on SC judgment in Checkmate Services; ITAT relied on the SC judgement in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange; HC stated that Saurashtra Kutch judgment is not an authority for the proposition that the power u/s 254(2) can be invoked on the ground of “mistake apparent from the record” on the basis of a subsequent decision; Date when the original ITAT order was passed by the ITAT, it followed the law as it stood then and hence it could not be said that there was any error or apparent mistake.

Subsequent ruling of a superior court cannot be a ground for invoking the provisions of Section 254(2); Revenue filed MA before the ITAT, subsequent to ITAT order, requesting the Tribunal to recall its order dated September 5, 2022 by placing reliance on SC judgment in Checkmate Services; ITAT relied on the SC judgement in Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange; HC stated that Saurashtra Kutch judgment is not an authority for the proposition that the power u/s 254(2) can be invoked on the ground of “mistake apparent from the record” on the basis of a subsequent decision; Date when the original ITAT order was passed by the ITAT, it followed the law as it stood then and hence it could not be said that there was any error or apparent mistake.

ITAT had set aside CIT(E) order which had rejected assessee’s application for registration u/s 12AB holding that the question as to whether Trust is created or established for benefit of any particular religious community or caste in violation of Section 13 would be relevant for assessment of income under Section 11 and not at the time of granting registration; Power of CIT(E) u/s 12AB is limited to decide whether Trust has fulfilled necessary requirements of registration u/s 12A; CIT cannot mix the requirement of registration of a trust with that of granting exemption u/s 13; HC dismissed Revenue’s appeal.

ITAT held that consideration received by a UK based company towards providing video and audio content for in-flight entertainment (IFE) system to Indian airlines does not constitute as royalty in terms of Section 9(1)(vii) read with Article 13(4) of India-UK DTAA; Final product that emerges after compilation encoding and integration of videos as per the requirements of airlines was a copyrighted product of the assessee which is exhibited on IFE systems of the aircrafts operated by Air India, and as per the agreement assessee did not transfer any right in the copyrighted product but only permitted use of the copyrighted product; Revenue failed to show transfer of any knowhow or technical knowledge to airlines.

HC quashes GAAR proceedings initiated against an assessee holding that share transactions were part of the investment portfolio of the assessee and hence not hit by GAAR provisions; Assessee sold her shares in HCL Technologies to generate a capital loss, in order to off-set the same against other long term capital gains to the tune of Rs. 44 Cr; HC quoted from the Expert Committee report on GAAR, wherein the Committee opined that sale and purchase through stock market transactions would not come under the GAAR provisions; As per HC, it was a ‘pure trading’ by the assessee, with no evidence of any ‘arrangement’ so as to attract GAAR.

High Court set aside the ITAT order wherein demand was raised and interest and penalty was levied for non-compliance of Section 206C(1C); Compounding fee/fine collected u/s 23A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) cannot be subjected to proceeding under Section 206C(1C) as there is no legislative mandate to collect tax at source (TCS) on it; Section 206C(1C) only obliges the assessee to collect TCS from person from whom ‘royalty’ is payable to the State Government and Section 206C(1C) cannot be extended to the person involved in illegal mining or transporting illegal minerals; Terms “royalty” and “compounding fee”, both, are mutually exclusive”.

ITAT held income after transfer of the asset, received by the assessee as a gift from her husband, is chargeable to tax in the hands of the husband of the assessee and not the assessee, in view of Section 64(1)(iv); Said property was sold which resulted in capital gain, and such capital gain was chargeable to tax only in the hands of the husband; ITAT rejected Revenue’s argument that assessee’s contention of capital gain being taxable in her husband’s hand was an afterthought and so the assessee be prevented from raising this argument before the ITAT for the first time; As per ITAT, there is no option with the assessee or with AO to ignore the specific anti-avoidance rules under Section 64(1)(iv).