Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Krishnaraj Chandrasekar v. ACIT (2021) 430 ITR 211 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Issue of notice under section 143(2) prior to disposal of objections-Directed to keep the notice in abeyance. [S. 143(2), 148, Art. 226]

CIT v. Tidel Park Ltd. (No. 2) (2021) 430 ITR 242 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Income from business-Income from house property-Developing, operating and maintaining information technology parks-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 22, 28(i), 80IA(4), 148]

Oasys Green Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 207 / 199 DTR 521/ 319 CTR 695/ 279 Taxman 222 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Best judgment assessment-Principles of natural justice-Amalgamation-Unable to file returns of merged company en E-Portal-No opportunity to respond to notice and raise its objections to reasons-Order quashed and matter remanded. [S. 144 148, Art. 226]

Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021)430 ITR 426 / 279 Taxman 189(Karn.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 80IA, 148]

CIT v. Sterling Tree Magnum India Ltd. (2021) 430 ITR 515 / 277 Taxman 234(Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts- Audit objection-Barred by limitation. [S. 148, 153, 271(1)(c)]

Dass Media Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 430 ITR 419 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Limitation-Assessment not Under Section 143(3)-Limitation for notice is six years-Notice of reassessment on basis of protective assessment is valid. [S. 143(1), 148]

CIT v. B. Suresh Kumar (2021) 430 ITR 60 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts- Change of opinion-Tax deducted at source-Notice and reassessment is held to be invalid. [S. 148]

PCIT v. Shitalben Saurabh Vora (2021) 430 ITR 253 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 143(3) : Assessment-Cash credits-Unexplained money-Estimation of profit-Estimation of profit too 2 Per cent of total credits held to be justified. [S. 68, 69]

Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam v. PCIT (2021) 430 ITR 41/276 Taxman 384/ 199 DTR 132 / 204 DTR 268/ 319 CTR 108 (MP)(HC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Nature of business and volume and complexity of accounts and multiplicity of transactions-Order directing special audit is proper. [S. 142(1), Art. 226]

Shilpa Chowdhary v . PDIT (Inv.) (2021) 430 ITR 218/197 DTR 68/ 318 CTR 1 / 277 Taxman 576 (Delhi)(HC) Vikas Chowdhary v. PDIT (Inv.) (2021) 430 ITR 218/197 DTR 68/ 318 CTR 1/ 277 Taxman 576 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Writ-Warrant of Authorisation-High Court can find out if there was reason to believe-Cannot determine whether reasons were adequate. [R. 112(1), 112(2)(c), Art. 226]