Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Seema Gupta v. ACIT (2024) 298 Taxman 372 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Client Code Modification (CCM) as a tool for tax evasion-Information from Investigation Directorate-Minor discrepancies in language employed by revenue and as it stood reflected in reasons provided to assessee and that which existed on record would clearly not justify for interference with impugned reopening notice-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 79 / 464 ITR 659 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Special category states-Excessive deduction-Expenditure on scientific research-CSR expenses-Donations-Change of opinion-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 35(2AB), 37(1), 80G, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Mahavir Enterprises v. ITO (2024) 298 Taxman 308 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Housing projects-Failure to complete the project within time limit-Change of opinion-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S.80IB(10), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Castrol India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 524 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Corporate social responsibility (CSR)-Donation-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 143(3), 148, Art, 226] Companies Act, 2013. S.135

GRI Towers India (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2024) 298 Taxman 382 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Share application money at premium-Issue was considered in the original assessment proceedings-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S.56, 68, 143(3), Art. 226]

Bajaj Energy Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 298 Taxman 59 / 464 ITR 569 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Notice based on same issue-Change of opinion-Notice is not valid-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 14A 148, Art.226]

PCIT v. Sanjay Mehta (2024) 298 Taxman 673 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Order passed without disposing the objection-Order of Tribunal quashing the assessment order is held be justified. [S. 148, 260A]

Pasari Casting and Rolling Mills (P.) Ltd. v. ITD (2024) 298 Taxman 675 (Jharkhand)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Cash credits-Accomodation entry-The belief formed by the Assessing Officer suffers from lack of bona fides, is vague, far-fetched, irrelevant, based on conjecture and surmises and also arbitrary and irrational-Notice and order is quashed and set aside. [S. 144, 144B, 148, Art.226]

Sanofi India Ltd v. Dy.CIT (2024) 298 Taxman 232 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Transfer pricing-Purchase-Import of raw materials-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S.92C, 148, Art. 226]

Sahana Dwellers (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC (2024) 298 Taxman 670 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Revision order-Pendency of proceedings-Sanction is bad in law-Reassessment order is quashed.[S. 143(3), 151, 151, Art. 226]