Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Devat and Ram Company (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 538 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purcahses-Information received from GST department-Disregarding response furnished by assessee solely for reason of information on portal and simply reiterating information as available, would render procedure under section 148A meaningless-Accordingly reopening notice issued against assessee was set aside [S. 69C, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Neena Singh Thakur v. PCIT (2025) 305 Taxman 194 (HP)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-No reason was given in support of conclusion that escaped income was more than Rs. 50 lakhs-Matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer to decide same afresh in accordance with law.[S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Smart Vishwas Society v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 416 (SC) Editorial : Smart Vishwas Society v. ACIT (2023) 156 taxmann.com 188 (All)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained investments-Writ against issue of notice under section 148 was dismissed-Assessee filed SLP against order of High Court-Assessee sought permission to withdraw SLP with liberty to file review before High Court-SLP filed against order was to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file review before High Court.[S. 131(IA), 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 136]

ITO v. Aruna Surulkar (2025) 305 Taxman 3 (SC) Editorial : Aruna Surulkar v.ITO (2024) 158 taxmann.com 677 (Bpm)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Capital gains-Full value of consideration-Stamp valuation-Non application of mind-Notice and consequential order was quashed by High Court-Delay of 331 days-SLP of revenue was dismissed as th delay has not been satisfactorily explained. [S. 50C, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 136]

ACIT v. Ardent Steel Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 629 (SC) Editorial : ACIT v. Ardent Steel Ltd. (2025)175 taxmann.com 816 (Chhatisgarh)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice through his Chartered Accountant-No notice was issued within period of limitation-Service of notice to Chartered Accountant was not valid service of notice-High Court quashed the reassessment notice-SLP delay of 327 days-Explanation rendered for delay was not satisfactory, SLP was dismissed on ground of delay and laches. [S. 149(1)(b), Art. 136]

Modern Realty (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2025) 305 Taxman 115 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Not dealt with the objections-Matter was t remanded back to Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order disposing of objections raised by assessee.[S. 147, Art. 226]

Kishore Kumar Singh v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 48 (Patna)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Without supporting reasons-Notice is quashed and set aside. [S. 147, Art. 226]

Evergreen Infrasolutions (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 305 Taxman 497 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Block period-Satisfaction note was recorded on 27-8-2024-Assessment year 2014-15 fell beyond ten-year block period and, therefore, impugned notice issued under section 148 was barred by limitation.[S. 132,148A(b), 148A(d), 158BC, Art. 226]

ACIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (2025) 305 Taxman 26 (Mad)(HC) Editorial : Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd v. ACIT (WP(Md) Nos.19202 of 2018 and 19826 of 2018 dt 30-10 2019 (SJ)(Mad)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment–Cash credits-Information from investigation wing-Round tripping-Share subscription agreement and shareholders agreement with KKR Mauritius-Failure on part of assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Sanjay Kaul v. ITO (2025) 305 Taxman 462 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Cash credits-Penny stock-Accommodation entries-General information-India Infotech and Software ltd-SRK industries Ltd-Capital gains-Capital loss-Materials based on which said report was prepared had also not been placed on record by revenue-Conclusion arrived at by Assessing Officer was based on suspicion created by information that shares of IISL and SRK were penny stocks. On facts reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed and set aside. [S. 45, 68, 148, Art. 226]