Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ramachandran Shivan v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 305 (Mad)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Limitation-Amendment of Section 151 with effect from 1-4-2021-Issue of notice in respect Of Assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 notice is not valid-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Proviso. [S. 147, 148,149(1), 151, Art. 226]

Manju Somani v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 758/165 taxmann.com 675 /300 Taxman 516 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Limitation-Bar Of Limitation-Initiation of proceedings from 1-4-2021-Notice issued beyond period of limitation of six years-Notice and order is quashed and set aside. [147, 148, 148A(d), 149, Art.226]

Ashok Kumar Makhija v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 283 /162 taxmann.com 514 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Sanction for notice issued by Income-Tax Authority which did not have jurisdiction-Notice is not Valid.[S. 147, 148, 151, Art.226]

Anup Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 494 /300 Taxman 321 (Cal)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Time granted to respond to notice lesser than prescribed seven days-Opportunity of personal hearing not granted-Notices and order set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b). 148A(d),151A Art. 226]

Progress Rail Locomotive Inc. v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2024)466 ITR 76 / 339 CTR 129/163 taxmann.com 52(Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Non-Resident-Permanent Establishment-Transactions found to be at arm’s length-Supplying materials through direct imports to Indian Railways-Allegation of wholly owned subsidiary-No material to prove conclusively that Indian Subsidiary’s place assessee’s Permanent Establishment falling in any of three Categories. Petition is allowed. Liberty is given to Department to independently examine whether Delhi Office of assessee a Permanent Establishment or service Permanent Establishment-DTAA-India-USA. [S.92CA, 133A, 148, Art.5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 5(4)]

Poonam Builders v. ACIT (2024)466 ITR 186/162 taxmann.com 238 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Effect of third proviso to Section 147-Income which was the subject matter of appeal-Notice Of Reassessment In Respect Of Such Income Not Valid. [S.80IB(10), 148, 250, Art. 226]

Geopreneur Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2024)466 ITR 640 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Financial cost-Interest-Tax deducted at source-Query was raised in the course of original assessment proceedings-Reassessment notice on same issue is not valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Sunita Purushottam Virgincar (Smt.) v. ITO (2024)466 ITR 238/164 taxmann.com 352 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Sale consideration-Division of income between spouses and not assets for capital gains-Portuguese Civil Code-Notice based on wrong facts and erroneous reasons-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S.5A, 50C, 133A, 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Bajargan Traders [2017] 86 taxmann.com 295 / (2024) 466 ITR 397 (Raj)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Survey-Excess-stock-Surrender-Reflected in sales and closing stock-Accounting treatment is held to be proper-Investment in excess stocks to be taxed as part of business income and not as income from other sources. Proper-Accrual-Notional interest-Lower interest charged from wife of one of partners-Commercial expediency-Notional addition is not justified-Partners were paid interest at 12 Per Cent. and balance in partners’ account much more than amount advanced to wife of partner-Disallowance is to be restricted at 2 Per Cent.[S. 4, 5,,28(i), 69, 133A]

Ayodhya Rami Reddy v.PCIT (2024)466 ITR 497 / 339 CTR 497 /163 taxmann.com 277 (Telangana)(HC) Oxford Ayyappa Consulting Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT (2024)466 ITR 497 / 339 CTR 497 /163 taxmann.com 277 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 144BA : Reference to Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in certain cases-Avoidance of tax-Applicability of Chapter X-A-Multiple share transactions indicating intention to avoid tax-Burden of proof on assessee to prove contrary —Evidence that share transactions not qualifying as permissible under tax laws-Chapter X-A is applicable. [S. 95 to 102, Art. 226]