Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Palco Recycle Industries Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 296 Taxman 44 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147:Reassessmet-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion cannot be a reason to reopen the assessment.[S. 35D, 148, Art. 226]

Saraswati Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 296 Taxman 260 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Money transferred to assessee’s bank account from cash deposits in other persons bank account-Borrowed Satisfaction-Mere increase in funds from previous year-No Tangible material on record-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Pfizer Ltd v. UOI (2024) 296 Taxman 2(Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Capital Gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp Duty Valuation-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S.45, 50C, 148, Art. 226]

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 145 taxmann.com 228 (2024) 460 ITR 345 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Direction of Audit party-Amalgamation-AO issued notice on the ground of directions issued by the audit party-Being not on AO’s personal satisfaction, reopening of assessment without any basis, merely on change of opinion and not permissible in law-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 72A(4), 148, Art. 226

Noshir Darabshaw Talati v. Dy. CIT (2024) 296 Taxman 133 / 462 ITR 37 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. (2(22)(e), 147, 148, Art. 226]

Kumarbhai Manharlal Desai v. ACIT (2024) 296 Taxman 12(Guj)(HC)

S. 144B: Face less assessment-Reassessment-Principle of natural justice-Technical glitch-Order is set aside.[S. 147, 148, Art.226]

Shashi Bala Sharma v. ITO (2024) 296 Taxman 446 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Video Conferencing not granted by the Assessing Officer-Grave abrogation of jus naturale-impugned assessment order is set aside.[S. 144B(6) (viii), 147, 148, Art. 226]

Gemini Film Circuit v. NFAC, Delhi. (2023) 157 taxmann.com 445 (2024) 461 ITR 13 (Mad)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principles of natural justice-At least 21 days time should be given to file reply-Legislative Intent is to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any orders, which are prejudicial to their rights/interests-It is bounden duty of the Assessing Officer to pass a detailed order, providing reasons for rejection of the contention of the assessee-Matter restored to the file of the AO as the assessee was granted time of 5 days only without referring to opportunity of personal hearing.[Art. 226]

Devendran Coal International (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC (2024) 296 Taxman 417 (Mad)(HC)

S.144B: Faceless assessment-Assessment order passed without issuing draft assessment order, matter remitted to pass a fresh order per law.[S. 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. DSG Papers P. Ltd. (2024)461 ITR 4 (P&H)(HC) Editorial: Relied on Andaman Timber Industries v CCE [2015 81 CTR (SC) 241/ 38 GSTR 117 (SC), CIT v Rajesh Kumar [2008 306 ITR 27 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Principles of natural justice-Cross examination not granted by the Assessing Officer-Order of the Tribunal setting aside the assessment was upheld by the High Court. [S. 260A]