S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry and providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information received under risk management strategy framed by CBDT-Approval of Principal Commissioner obtained-AO cannot be compelled to obtain two identical approvals under sections 148A and 151. SLP dismissed. [S. 148, 151, Art. 136]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Addition of unexplained share premium not forming part of recorded reasons for reopening is unsustainable-If no addition is made on issue for which assessment was reopened, no other addition can be made-Reassessment order quashed. [S. 68, 148, 260A]

S. 147: Reassessment-Audit objection-Non-resident-Assessing Officer must apply independent mind-Audit objection is only “information” and not a command to reopen-Reassessment cannot be used to review a concluded scrutiny assessment-Change of opinion not permissible-In absence of failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, extended period of six years not available-Limitation restricted to four years from end of relevant assessment year-Notice issued beyond four years held barred by limitation-Notice under section 148A(b), order under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 quashed. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), 149, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Shell companies-Information from Investigation Wing that assessee raised share capital through paper/shell companies controlled by accommodation entry operator-Assessee failed to furnish crucial details sought by Assessing Officer-Information constituted tangible material having live link with formation of belief that income had escaped assessment-Reassessment notice held valid-Writ petition dismissed. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-Face less assessment-Notice under section 148 issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer held valid despite faceless assessment regime-Approval under section 151 by Joint Commissioner after 1-4-2021 invalid-In search cases, section 147 can be invoked where sections 153A/153C are inapplicable-Limitation for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 to be tested in light of TOLA and Ashish Agarwal / Rajeev Bansal-Matter remanded. [[S. 144B, 148, 149(1), proviso 3, 151, 153A, 153C, Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, s. 3(1), Art. 226]

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Business expenditure-Wages and salaries expenditure-Liability on account of retrospective revision in salaries of seconded employees crystallised during relevant assessment year-Full disclosure in accounts-Conditions of section 149(1)(b) not satisfied as escapement not represented in the form of an asset-Order under section 148A(d), notice under section 148 and reassessment proceedings quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(b), Art. 226]

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Charitable Trust-Delay in filing Form 10B-No mala fide intention in Order rejecting assessee’s application quashed and set aside-Delay condoned.[S. 11, 12, 119(2)(b), Art.226, Form, 10B]

S. 119: Central Board of Direct Taxes-Circular-Charitable trust-Delay of 700 days in filing Form No. 10B-No mala fide intention-Assessee, a registered public charitable trust, could not be denied exemption merely on technical bar of limitation when substantive conditions were satisfied-Order rejecting condonation application quashed-Delay condoned and assessee permitted to upload Form No. 10B. [S. 11, 12, 119(2)(b), Art. 226, Form No. 10B]

S. 80-IB(10) : Housing projects-Amendment by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1-4-2006-Joint venture development agreement and agreement for sale entered into on 23-11-2005, when s. 80AC was not on statute-For AY 2006-07, deduction u/s 80-IB(10) cannot be denied merely because no claim was made in return filed u/s 139(1)-However, for AYs 2007-08 onwards, in view of express bar in s. 80AC, no deduction allowable where assessee had not claimed deduction in return filed within due date-Plea that s. 80AC is only procedural/directory can be examined only in collateral proceedings under Art. 226 and not in appeal u/s 260A. [S. 80AC, 139(1), 260A, Art. 226]

S. 68: Cash credits-Unsecured loan-Assessee failed to prove genuineness of loan from struck-off company by not producing erstwhile directors or cogent evidence-Addition sustained-Plea that S. 41(1) applies rejected, as no genuine liability ever came into existence. [S. 41(1)]