Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Muhammed C.K. v. ACIT (2024) 338 CTR 367 (Ker) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Case covered by the provisions of S. 132A-Application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C.-Requisitioned from Police Station-Procedure contemplated by the provisions of s. 148A need not be complied with before issuing notices under S. 148.[S.132, 132A, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Cr.P.C.S. 451, Art. 226,]

Godrej Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 338 CTR 25 / 160 taxmann.com 13 / 470 ITR 628 (Bom) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-After four years – Limitation-Applicability of fifth proviso-Fifth proviso can only apply where one has to determine whether the time-limit of three years and ten years in S 149(1) are breached-Sixth proviso to S. 149 has no impact as it only provides a situation where after exclusion of the time period referred to in the fifth proviso, the time available with the AO for passing an order under S. 148A(d) is less than 7 days, then the remaining time frame shall be extended to 7 days and limitation also stands extended by 7 days-Revenue is seeking to exclude a period from 21st May, 2021 to 4th May, 2022-Which cannot apply-Hence, the notice dt. 31st July, 2022 is is barred by limitation hence bad in law. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1), Art. 226]

Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai v. ITO (2024) 338 CTR 478 /237 DTR 35 (Ker)(HC) Editorial : Affirmed by division bench, Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai v. ITO (2024) 338 CTR 476 (Ker) (HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information from the insight portal-Disputed question of fact-Writ petition is affirmed. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art.226]

Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai v. ITO (2024) 338 CTR 476 (Ker) (HC) Editorial : Dinesh Dinakaran Pillai v. ITO (2024) 338 CTR 478 / 237 DTR 35 (Ker) (HC), affirmed.

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information from the insight portal-Disputed question of fact-Order of single judge dismissing the writ petition is affirmed. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art.226]

N. Binoj v. ITO (2024) 338 CTR 371 (Ker)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice in the name of deceased-Participated in the proceedings-Petition is dismissed on the ground that notice under S. 148A(b) was not in their names, subsequent orders and notice under S. 148A(b) and 148, respectively, cannot be passed and issued to them-The petitioners are granted 30 days further time from today to file return in pursuance to the notice under S. 148. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Anindita Sengupta v. ACIT (2024) 338 CTR 641/ 161 taxmann.com 39 /467 ITR 627 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : Refer, UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) taxmann.com [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Second notice under section 148 was issued after first reassessment proceedings are finalized-No writ petition was filed against the original reassessment notice-Second reassessment proceeding is quashed.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Godrej Projects Development (P) Ltd. v.ITO (2024) 338 CTR 193/ 159 taxmann.com 32/471 ITR 493 (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Specific query was raised in the original assessment proceedings-Shares at premium-Borrowed satisfaction-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed and set aside. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

Taeyang Metal India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 338 CTR 161/ 160 taxmann.com 536 (Mad) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Assessment-Limitation-Order passed beyond one month of directions of DRP under S. 144C(13)-The assessment order was barred by limitation.[S. 143(3), 144C(13), Art. 226]

Wadakkancherry Service CoOperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 338 CTR 752 (Ker) (HC) Editorial :Order of single judge is set aside, Wadakkancherry Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v ITO (2024) 338 CTR 750 (Ker) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Opportunity of hearing-Principle of natural justice-Opportunity of personal hearing was not given-Writ petition is dismissed. [Art. 226]

Wadakkancherry Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v ITO (2024) 338 CTR 750 (Ker) (HC) Editorial :Order of single judge is set aside, Wadakkancherry Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v ITO (2024) 338 CTR 750 (Ker) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Opportunity of hearing-Principle of natural justice-Opportunity of personal hearing was not given-Order of single judge rejecting the petition is quashed and set aside. [Art. 226]