Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Lakhendra Kumar Raushan Lakhendra Kumar Roushan v. PCIT (2024) 296 Taxman 526 /336 CTR 186/ 467 ITR 549(Patna)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Notice not disclosing the additions to be made-Matter remanded.[S. 69A, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Nitin Agarwal v. ITO (No. 2) [2023] 157 taxmann.com 35 / (2024) 460 ITR 323 (Cal) (HC)Editorial : Refer order of single judge , Nitin Agarwal v. ITO (NO. 1) (2024)460 ITR 321 (Cal)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchases)-No opportunity of personal hearing granted-Violation of principle of natural justice-Matter remanded-The assessee is directed to file objections with supportive documents. [S. 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]

Sidhbali Kripa Enterprises v. ITO (2024) 296 Taxman 32 (All) (HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Advanced loans-Alternative remedy-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 131(IA), 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Shyam Sundar Dhanuka v. UOI (2023) 156 taxmann.com 499 /(2024) 461 ITR 25 (Cal)(HC) Editorial :Order of single Judge is affirmed Shyam Sundar Dhanuka v. ITO (2024)461 ITR 22 (Cal)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Alternative remedy-The High Court dismissed the writ filed by the assessee against the assessment order with direction to avail alternative available under the Act as the assessee had failed to point out any procedural irregularity or illegality in the proceedings.[S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Devendra v. Add CIT (2023) 294 Taxman 550 / 335 CTR 1057/(2024) 461 ITR 463 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice issued in the name of dead person-Not enforceable in the eyes of law-The legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the department-Requirement of issuing notice to a correct person is not a merely a procedure requirement but is a condition precedent the impugned notice being valid in law-Notice is held to be null and void.[S. 10(37) 144. 147, 292BB, Art. 226

Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 150 taxmann.com 136 / (2024) 461 ITR 210 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Audit objection-Corporate Social responsibility-Reopening of assessment on perusal of the records available during the course of assessment proceedings-Amounts to change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art. 226]

Paresh Babubhai Bahalani v. ITO (2024) 296 Taxman 324 /463 ITR 103 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Undisclosed investment-Not recording of independent satisfaction-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed [S.69B, 148, Art. 226]

Vaman Prestressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (2023) 295 Taxman 252 / (2024) 461 ITR 192 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Advancing loan to sister concern from borrowed capital without interest-Loan was advanced out of commercial expediency-Reopening of assessment on the ground that interest claimed on borrowed capital is not allowable and hence, escaped assessment-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 36(1)(iii), 148, Art. 226]

Ratnabhumi Developers Ltd. vs. ACIT (2024) 296 Taxman 364 (Guj)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Compensation-Business expenditure-No new tangible material-Assessee had filed reply during original assessment proceedings-twin conditions-New tangible material and failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts truly and fully, does not exist-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art. 226]

Digital Mesh Softech India Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 223 (Ker)(HC)/U.S.Technology International Pvt Ltd v. UOI (2024) 461 ITR 223 (Ker)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Reopening of assessment on the basis of decision of court that approval not obtained from competent authority-not a case of income escaping assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts during the course of assessment-reopening unjustified.[S.10B, 148, Art. 226]