Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Mahendra Gala v. ITO (2024) 4571 ITR 758 (SC) Editorial : Mahendra Gala v. ITO (2024) 471 ITR 757 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Writ petition is dismissed on the ground with liberty to assessee to raise all contentions in reply before Assessing Officer and also direction for grant of personal hearing-Income-On SLP the Department stated that it had no objection to quash the notice as the transactions between a mother and son-Appeal is allowed [S. 147, Art. 136]

Jagdishkumar Vitthalbhai Patel v. ITO (2023) 471 ITR 216 /151 taxmann.com 121 (Guj) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Co-owner-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 45(3) 50C, 148, Art. 226]

Dhirajlal Gandalal Mehta v. ITO (2024) 471 ITR 58 /160 taxmann.com 313 (Guj)(HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue is dismissed, ITO v. Dhirajlal Gandalal Mehta (2024) 298 Taxman 351 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Cash credits-Partners capital account-No satisfaction was recorded-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection quashed is quashed. [S. 68, 131(IA), 148, Art. 226]

Shashikiran Janardhan Shetty v. ACIT (2023)153 taxmann.com 472 / (2024) 471 ITR 528 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Purchase of land-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed and set aside.[S.69C, 147, 153A, Art. 226]

Shree Digvijaya Woollen Mills Ltd. v.CIT (2024)471 ITR 655 (P&H) (HC)

145 : Method of accounting-Wastage-Suppression of weight or production-Addition is made on presumptions and assumptions-Addition affirmed by the Tribunal is deleted-Scarp value of discarded cables-Addition is deleted.[S. 41(2), 256(2)]

PCIT v. Sumitomo Corporation India (P.) Ltd. (2024) 471 ITR 688 /166 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Remand proceedings-Assessment order passed without passing a draft assessment is not tenable-Limitation period is expired. [S.92C, 153(3), 154(4), 260]

Anuj Bakshi v. ACIT (2024)471 ITR 446 (Cal) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Inability to participate in video conference-Natural justice-No fault of the assessee-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [S. 143(3), 144, Art. 226]

MAA Padmavati Exports v. ITO (2024) 471 ITR 683/ 163 taxmann.com 605 (Guj) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Cash credits-Un secured loan-No opportunity of cross examination is provided-Assessment order is set aside. [S. 68, 133(6) Art, 226]

Jyoti Narang v. ITO (2024) 471 ITR 66 (Delhi)(HC).

S. 143(3): Assessment-Notice is sent to wrong email-Order is set a side-The Assessing Officer is directed to pass an order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. [S. 156, Art. 226]

Naresh Sangeetha v. ITO (2024)471 ITR 515 (Mad) (HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Capital gains-Penny stock-Shyam transactions-Statement of third parties used against the assessee-No opportunity of cross examination is given-Assessment order is set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration.[S. 10(38) 45, 112A, Art. 226]