Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Inder Dev Gupta v. ACIT [2025] 180 taxmann.com 805/ (2026) 349 CTR 688 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 151A: Faceless assessment of income escaping assessment-Reassessment-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as well as Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) possess concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under section 148-Notice issued by JAO is valid and not in contravention of the statutory scheme under section 151A. [S. 147, 148 Art. 226]

Pr. CIT v. Agroha Fincap Ltd. [2025] 179 taxmann.com 185 / (2026) 349 CTR 450 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed, Agroha Fincap Ltd v. PCIT [2026] 186 taxmann.com 281 (SC)

S. 151: Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Cash credits-Share capital and share premium received-Accommodation entries-Reopening of assessment-Approval under section 151-Single line approval recording satisfaction held valid-Competent Authority used language ‘Yes, I am convinced it is a fit case for reopening of assessment under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148’, same would satisfy the mandate of section 151-ITAT order quashing reassessment set aside low tax effect-Exception. [S. 68, 147, 148, 268A]

Jasbir Singh Oberoi v. UOI [2026] 184 taxmann.com 726 / 349 CTR 585 (J&K) (HC)

S. 149: Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Notice issued under section 148, pursuant to an order passed under section 148A(d), beyond the prescribed statutory period of 30 days was bad in law. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), TOLA S. 3, Art. 226]

Veena Arora v. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 111 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 148: Reassessment-Reason to believe-Information/material indicating escapement of income-Purchase of flat from builder does not by itself bar reassessment-S. 148 as applicable from 1-4-2021 [Art. 226]

ACIT v. City Union Bank Ltd. (2025) 181 taxmann.com 176(2026) 349 CTR 53 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: City Union Bank Ltd v.ACIT (2020) 116 taxmann.com 139/ 425 ITR 475 (Mad)(HC), order of single judge was set aside.

S. 147: Reassessment-Disallowance of expenditure-Exempt income-Assessee participated in proceedings and objections disposed of by a speaking order-Writ petition challenging notice under section 148 not maintainable at show-cause stage-Order of single judge set aside. [S.14A, 148, Art. 226]

Motorola India (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 461 (P&H)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Reason to believe-Order of Transfer Pricing Officer for subsequent assessment year can be taken into account for reassessment of period prior to amendment of section 92-Writ petitions dismissed. [S. 92, Art.226]

Ravi Kumar Kailashnath Jaiswal v. ACIT (2026) 349 CTR 329 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Reassessment order passed in reliance on a superior court ruling after original notices were quashed by the High Court-An unappealed High Court judgment quashing a notice remains final and cannot be bypassed via subsequent universal rulings. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, Art. 226]

Eaton Power Quality (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2026) 349 CTR 564 /183 taxmann.com 363 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Reference to TPO under section 92CA was made on 11-01-2022 after expiry of limitation for passing an assessment order under section 153(2) on 31-03-2021; it was without jurisdiction. The order passed under section 92CA (3) on 27-01-2022 and consequential proceedings under section 144C were set aside. [S. 92CA (3), 153(2), Art. 226]

New Delhi Television Ltd. v. DRP (2026) 349 CTR 172 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144C: Reference to dispute resolution panel-Transfer pricing-Assessment-Limitation-Remand by Tribunal directly to Transfer Pricing Officer-Second reference by Assessing Officer after Transfer Pricing Officer had already passed order in compliance with Tribunal’s directions-Superfluous and barred by limitation-Assessing Officer deprived of jurisdiction to pass final assessment order. [S. 92CA,, 153(3), 153(4), Art. 226]

Milacron India (P) Ltd. v. AUITD (2026) 349 CTR 475 (Guj)(HC)

S. 144B: Faceless assessment-Objections to draft assessment order-Filed before jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer due to inadvertence-Final assessment order quashed-Matter remanded to Dispute Resolution Panel. [S. 143(3), 144C, Art. 226]