Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


PMC Fincorp Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 158 taxmann.com 533 / (2025) 482 ITR 444 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Accommodation entry-Cash credits-Same material-Second notice-No fresh material-Reassessment notice and order disposing of the objection was quashed. [S. 68, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Browntape Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 482 ITR 789 (Bom) (Gao)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Order passed without considering objections of assessee-Not valid-Order and notice quashed and set aside. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Rajesh Poddar v.ITO [2023] 152 taxmann.com 98 / (2025) 482 ITR 770 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Reasons for notice not given to assessee-GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC)-Draft Order of assessment order passed without giving assessee sufficient time to raise objection; assessment not valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]

Shahana Nayak v. ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 482 / (2025) 482 ITR 767 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–Return filed in response to notice of reassessment. Inadvertent error in stating that the return was under Error should be ignored-Reassessment order passed without considering the submission-Order and consequential notices were quashed and set aside.[S. 139, 148, 292B, Art.226]

Axis Bank Ltd. v.ACIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 395 / (2025) 482 ITR 746 (Guj)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Bad debts-Change of opinion-No new facts-Notice and order disposing of the objection is quashed. [S. 36(1)(vii), 148, Art.226]

BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 64 /(2025) 482 ITR 477 (Delhi)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice is held to be valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]

S.B. Packagings Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 482 ITR 456 (Delhi)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Second round of notice-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice and order disposing of the objection are quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Chinnathambi Rajeswari v.ACIT (2025) 482 ITR 606 (Mad)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Stamp value-Information regarding enhanced stamp value of property purchased by assessee, was before the Assessing Officer at the time of making assessment-Reopening of assessment to assess amount enhanced beyond was not justified.[S. 56, 148, Art. 226]

Hemanshu Ramniklal Shah v ITO (2025) 482 ITR 138/171 taxmann.com 19 (Guj)(HC) Editorial : SLP dismissed, ITO v. Hemanshu Ramniklal Shah (2025) 304 Taxman 610 / 482 ITR 147 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Non application of mind-Change of opinion-Notice and order rejecting objections quashed and set aside [S. 68,143(3), 148,Art. 226]

Kapstone Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 153 taxmann.com 305 / (2025) 482 ITR 940 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Failure to disclose material facts-Notice not valid.[S. 148, Art. 226]