Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Geetaben Dineshchandra Gupta v. ITO (2021) 208 DTR 154 / 129 taxmann.com 346 / (2022)441 ITR 698 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Accommodation entries-Purchase and sales-Commission income was not disclosed-Information from investigation Wing-Direct nexus and live link-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

S.Subrahmanyan Constructions Co. (P.) Ltd. v. A CIT (2021) 439 ITR 600/ 207 DTR 289/ (2022) 324 CTR 282 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Order of single judge in Subrahmanyan Constructions Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 439 ITR 589/ 207 DTR 296 / (2022) 324 CTR 274 (Mad)(HC), is set aside.

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Seeking clarification-Retention money-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148, Art. 226]

DCIT v. Dilip J. Thakkar (2022) 194 ITD 245/ 211 DTR 177/ 216 TTJ 121 ( Mum) (Trib) www.itatonline .org

S. 149: Reassessment – Foreign asset – HSBC Geneva account of Trust – Time limit for notice – 16 years – Assets held outside India – Introduced vide Finance Act, 2012 – Retrospective in nature. [S. 147, 148, 151]

The Great Eastern Shipping Company Ltd. v. K.C Naredi, Add. CIT (2021) 208 DTR 273 / 440 ITR 58 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Shipping business-Reserves-Dividend and long term capital gains-No failure to disclose material facts-Return was not filed in pursuance of notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act-There is no hard and fast rule that the assessee should file the return pursuant to notice, when the reasons do not disclose on the face of it any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 33AC, 148, Art. 226]

Kalpataru Plus Shrayans v. Dy. CIT (2021) 207 DTR 138 / 323 CTR 747 ( 2022) 440 ITR 269/ 286 Taxman 159 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest expenses-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 57, 148, Art. 226]

Subrahmanyan Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 207 DTR 289 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Seeking clarification-Retention money-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148, Art, 226]

Shilpa Realty (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2021 323 CTR 830 / 208 DTR 70 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Directed to pass speaking order while disposing the objections after considering the objections of the assessee-Assessment order was quashed and set aside. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Delphi-TVS Diesel Systems Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 323 CTR 508 / 207 DTR 329/ ( 2022) 440 ITR 310 / 286 Taxman 144 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Power of enhancement-Any matter relating to assessment-Writ was dismissed. [S.92C, 144C(8), Art, 226]

Setu Securities (P) Ltd. v. NFAC (2021) 323 CTR 646 / 207 DTR 425 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Cash credits-Violation of principle of natural justice-Two days’ time was not granted-Draft assessment order was not provided-Assessment order was set aside. [Art. 226]

Umkal Healthcare (P) Ltd. v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 504 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Opportunity of personal hearing was not granted-Order was set aside-Directed the Assessing Officer to pass a reasonable order in accordance with law. [S. 143(3), 144B(7), Art. 226]