Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


Annamalai University v. ITO (2018) 401 ITR 80/ 166 DTR 422 (Mad) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Educational institution-Availability of alternative statutory remedy – Writ was held to be not maintainable [ S. 10(23C)(vi),148, Art .226 ]

Scan Holding P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 290 / 169 DTR 334(Delhi) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Rejection of objection without assigning reasons was held to be bad in law [ S. 148 ]

Giriraj Steel v. DCIT (2018) 402 ITR 204 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Details of income submitted during scrutiny assessment-Reassessment notice based on same facts was held to be not valid .[ S. 148 ]

Friends of WWB India v. DIT (2018) 402 ITR 350 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Change of opinion – Transaction relating to subsequent year –Reassessment was held to be not justified .[ S. 2(15) 148 ]

Rajnish Jain. v. CIT (2018) 402 ITR 12/ 166 DTR 205 (All) (HC)

S. 147: Reassessment — Purchase and sale of shares — Accommodation entries – Reassessment rejecting the capital gain was held to be valid [ S. 143(3) 148 ]

Ajanta Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2018) 402 ITR 72 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years-Reopening of assessment by succeeding Assessing Officer to disallow excess deduction was held to be change of opinion which was held to be impermissible [ S.80IA, 143(3) 148 ]

Gateway Technolabs Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 437 (Guj) (HC)

S. 147: Reassessment – Recorded reasons- Wrongly stating matters for earlier years pending before High court instead of before Tribunal being inadvertent error, does not invalidate reasons recorded for reopening of assessment — Reopening was held to be valid [S. 10A,143(1), 148 ]

Cedric De Souza Faria. v. DCIT (2018) 400 ITR 30 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- There was no failure to disclose all material facts – Reassessment was held to be not valid – Alternative remedy is no bar to file writ petition if the action of the authority is beyond their jurisdiction . [S. 148 ]

Gujarat Mall Management Company Private Limited v. ITO (2018) 400 ITR 329 (Guj) ( HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Deemed dividend – No failure to disclose material facts hence reassessment was held to be not valid [ S. 148 ]

Suntec Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2018) 401 ITR 101 / 170 DTR 318/ 305 CTR 102 (Ker) ( HC)

S. 147: Reassessment — After the expiry of four years – Failure to repatriate export proceeds with in time stipulated – Reassessment proceedings was held to be valid . AO was directed to verify the contention of the assesse on facts .[ S.10B, 148 ]