Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Ethics Commercials Ltd. v. UOI(2023) 335 CTR 342 (Cal) (HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Specified authority-More than three years-Sanction of Principal CIT instead of principal Chief CIT-Matter remanded. [S. 148A(d) 151(ii),, Art. 226]

Giriraj Commercial (P) Ltd. v. UOI(2023) 334 CTR 589(Cal)( HC)

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Sanction-Limitation-Specified authority-For the purpose of approval in this case is Principal CIT and the AO has rightly taken approval from the Principal CIT concerned and such approval for passing the impugned order under S 148A(d) is legal and valid-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 148A((b), 148A(d), 149(1), 151, Art. 226]

Accord Capital Markets (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 333 CTR 549 (Cal)( HC) Editorial : Order of single Judge is affirmed, Accord Capital Markets (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2023) 333 CTR 550 (Cal)( HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Fictitious loss-Derivative loss-Full-fledged investigations are required-Due process is followed-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Heritage Holidays (P) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT(2023) 335 CTR 1101 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Failure to disclose capital gains-Sale consideration of immoveable properties-Writ petition is filed after five months of passing of order-Writ petition is dismissed.[S. 148A(b) Art. 226]

Usha Rani Girdhar v. ITO (2023) 334 CTR 596 / 146 taxmann.com 547 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Capital gains –Cash credits-Sale of property-Description of property was different in order passed under section 148A(d) from description in notice under section 148A(b)-Reassessment notice and order is quashed and set aside.[S. 45, 68, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Girdhar Goppal Dalmia v.UOI ( 2023) 333 CTR 388 ( Cal)( HC) Editorial : Order of single judge is set aside, Girdhar Goppal Dalmia v.UOI ( 2023) 333 CTR 393/ 224 DTR 439 ( Cal)( HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Principle of natural justice is violated-Seven days time exclusive of holidays to give reply was not provided-Matter is remanded back for fresh consideration.[S.148(A)(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Girdhar Goppal Dalmia v. UOI ( 2023) 333 CTR 387/ 224 DTR 433 ( Cal)( HC) Editorial: Order of single judge is set aside, Girdhar Goppal Dalmia v.UOI ( 2023) 333 CTR 379 ( Cal)( HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order passed is neither violation of principle of natural justice nor contrary to any statutory provision nor any procedural irregularity nor without jurisdiction-Writ petition is dismissed. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Accord Capital Markets (P) Ltd v.ITO ( 2023) 333 CTR 549 ( Cal)( HC) Editorial : Order of single judge is set aside, Accord Capital Markets (P) Ltd v.ITO ( 2023) 333 CTR 550 ( Cal)( HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Replies uploaded was not considered-Order passed and notice issued is set aside-Directed the Assessing Officer to pass a reasoned order on merits and in accordance with law. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Vedanta Resources Ltd. v. ACIT (IT) (2023) 333 CTR 432 / 150 taxmann.com 57 (Orissa)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice-Jurisdiction-Foreign company-No order of transfer was produced-Notices issued by ACIT, IT, Bhubaneswar were without jurisdiction and, impugned notices and all proceedings consequent thereto were to be quashed Notices issued by ACIT, IT, Bhubaneswar were without jurisdiction and, notices and all proceedings consequent thereto were quashed.[S. 120,127 147,197, Art. 226]

CIT (E) v. Tibetan Children’s Village Dal Lake (2023) 335 CTR 380 /155 taxmann.com 118 (Himachal Pradesh)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –Change of opinion-Spent more than 85 per cent of receipts-Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment order is affirmed.[S. 11, 12, 12A, 13, 148, 260A]