Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Karan Maheshwari v. ACIT (2024)465 ITR 232 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Information from insight portal that assessee had transacted with Mutual Fund found to be involved in scam-No nexus between belief and material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed-Court can examine relevancy of recorded reasons in writ jurisdiction. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Kalyan Chillara v. Dy. CIT (2024)465 ITR 729 (Telangana)(HC)

S. 148: Reassessment-Notice-Limitation-Amendment in law-Effect of amendment with effect from 1-4-2021-Notices dated 31-3-2021, but dispatched on 1-4-2021 or thereafter from Income-Tax Business application portal-Notices barred by limitation. [S. 147, 148, 149, 151, Art. 226]

Sun Tan Trading Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)465 ITR 540 /159 taxmann.com 217 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment Business expenditure-Incidental benefit to third party is not relevant-Notice and order disposing the objection. is quashed. [S.37(1), 148, Art.226]

Swapna Manuel v. ACIT (2024)465 ITR 769 (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Order is passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing-No evidence that violation of principle of natural justice had caused prejudice to assessee-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Anand Cine Services Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2024)465 ITR 245 (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Reassessment should be based on reasons given in notice-Reasons not found valid-No addition was made on the basis of recorded reasons-Additional grounds cannot validate reassessment-Alternate remedy is not an absolute bar on issue of writ.[S.45, 148, Art. 226]

Vibrant Securities Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024)465 ITR 531/161 taxmann.com 243 (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Transaction in shares-Live link between belief and material in possession is not established-Reopening on suspicion is impermissible. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Sulzer Pumps India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)465 ITR 619 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Eligible assessee-Draft assessment order-Failing to communicate to Assessing Officer Final assessment order is passed during pendency of objections-Order set aside and Assessing Officer is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with directions of Dispute Resolution Panel. [S. 143(3) 144B, 144C(2), 144C(3), 144C(4), Art.226]

De Diamond Electric India Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC (2024)465 ITR 626 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Eligible Assessee-Draft assessment order-Final assessment order passed while assessee’s objections against draft assessment order sub-judice before Dispute Resolution Panel-Assessment order, notices of demand and penalty set aside-Assessing Officer is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with directions from Dispute Resolution Panel. [S. 144, 144B, 144C(2)(b)(ii), 144C(3), 156, 270A, 274, Art. 226]

M Tech Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC (2024)465 ITR 60/161 taxmann.com 736 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Approval of Resolution Plan under Corporate Insolvency Resolution process-Subsequent notice Under Section 144B is not valid.[Insolvency And Bankruptcy Code, 2016, S. 31(1), Art. 226]

Parvathi v. NFAC (2024)465 ITR 760 (Mad)(HC) G. Ganesh v. NFAC (2024)465 ITR 760 (Mad)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Order of assessment without providing assessee opportunity to be heard-Not valid.[Art. 226]