Author: ksalegal

Author Archive


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 ]

Karti P. Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) Nalini Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233 / 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC) P.Chidambaram v. ACIT (2018) 402 ITR 488/ 252 Taxman 416 / 300 CTR 233/ 161 DTR 74 (Mad.)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years- Agricultural income –Change of opinion- Objection was disposed without speaking order-No failure to disclose material facts -Notice for reassessment only for the relevant year and there were hundreds of coffee growers whose income were also exempted, reopening notice issued only against assessee during relevant assessment year was unjustified .[ S.10(1), 148 ]