Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


CapitalG LP v ACIT (2024) 341 CTR 1024 / 165 taxmann.com 718 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice is issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and not under faceless mechanism-Notice and order is quashed. [S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226]

Vishal Garg v. ACIT (2024) 167 taxmann.com 483 /341 CTR 563/ 243 DTR 41 / 8 NYPCTR 1254 (P&H) (HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Non application of mind-Reply filed-Face less assessment-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S.133(6), 148, 148(ab) 148A(d). 151A Art. 226]

T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2024) 167 taxmann.com 759/ 469 ITR 657 / 341 CTR 465 / 243 DTR 305 / 8 NYPCTR 1426 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice issued by jurisdictional AO and not as per S. 151A-Section 144B cannot be viewed as exclusive basis for all assessment and reassessment procedures and Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) cannot be completely deprived of power to assess or reassess merely because section 144B and Faceless Reassessment Scheme 2022 have been introduced-Interpretation Of Statutes-Legislative intent-Principles of beneficial construction. [S. 144B 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226]

Ram Nebhnani (HUF) v. ITO (2024) 341 CTR 664 / 8 NYPCTR 1660 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Non application of mind-Net income from the buy and sell transactions amounts to only Rs. 77,280-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Genpact India (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2024) 341 CTR 30 /242 DTR 267 / 301 Taxman 126 / 8 NYPCTR 1180 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Limitation-Notice issued on 27-5-2022 under section 148A(b) was not in continuation of reopening notice under section 148 dated 30-6-2021-Reopening assessment for assessment year 2015-16, is in contravention of first proviso to section 149(1) and is barred by limitation.[S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 149(1)(b), Art. 226]

Kulwant Singh v. UOI (2024) 341 CTR 700 / 243 DTR 449 / 8 NYPCTR 1428 (P&H) (HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Limitation-Department is directed to examine each and every case relating to the deemed notices issued under S. 148, in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in UOI v. Rajeev Bansal (2024) 340 CTR 865 / 242 DTR 297 (SC) and reach to a conclusion, as to whether the proceedings would fall within the limitation or have become time barred.[S. 144B, 147, 148, 148A, 149, Art. 226]

J.B.J. Perfumes (P) LTD. v. PCIT (2024)163 taxmann.com 740/ 341 CTR 611 /242 DTR 518 / 8 NYPCTR 783 (HP) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Audit information-Same material-New tangible material-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed.[S.80IC, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Uber India Systems (P) LTD. v. ACIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 200/ 341 CTR 442 / 243 DTR 425 /8 NYPCTR 1385 (Bom)(HC)

S. 143(3): Assessment-Service of notice-Writ-Territorial jurisdiction of High Court-Place of business and registered office vis-a-vis service of notice-Notice is served on the assessee, whose registered office is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and who has received the notice at Mumbai-Part of the cause of action, in terms of cl. (2) of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, which, entitles the assessee to approach this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, with a grievance of breach of its legal and constitutional rights. [Art. 226]

Arise Industries & Agency (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2024) 167 taxmann.com 152 / 341 CTR 321 / 243 DTR 89 / 8 NYPCTR 1144 (Mad)(HC)

S. 127 : Power to transfer cases-Search and Seizure-Opportunity of being heard-Coordinated investigation-Transfer from Coimbatore to Kolkata-Transfer is valid.[Art. 226]

Alcatel Lucent India Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2024)341 CTR 953 / 167 taxmann.com 595/(2025)472 ITR 22 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 92C : Transfer pricing-Arm’s length price-Avoidance of tax-International transaction-Selection of comparable-Software development services and sale of software products-Cannot be comparable-Employee cost filter-Matter remanded to the Tribunal.[S. 92CA(3), 254(1), 260A]