Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Rupal Bhupendrasingh Sandhu v. ITO (2022) 219 TTJ 12 (UO) (Ahd)((Trib)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) has not expired-Reassessment notice is bad in law [S. 143(2), 147]

Jagsir Singh v. ITO (2022) 98 ITR 499 (Amritsar) (Trib) Sukhraj Singh v. ITO (2022) 98 ITR 499 (Amritsar) (Trib)

S. 148: Reassessment-Notice-Non filing of ITR-Agriculturist-Deposits of cash in assessee’s bank-Deposit in nature of exchange of agricultural land-Order passed by Assessing Officer without reason to believe and proper verification-Recorded statements not supplied to assessee-Additions made on suspicion-Additions deleted-Reassessment quashed. [S. 147]

Dhoot Stono Crafts P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)98 ITR 249 (Jaipur) (Trib)

S. 148: Reassessment-Notice-Reason to be formed before Issue of notice-Reassessment not valid. [S. 50C, 147]

Opel Paper Mills Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 121 / 217 DTR 1(Mum)((Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Bogus purchase-Reopening based on investigation of CBI held valid-Non-filer and did not provide for details to substantiate the transactions-. Addition to the extent of 12.50% was held to be justifiable. [S. 68, 69C, 148, 143(3)]

Nishant Kantilal Patel v. ITO (2022) 217 TTJ 895 / 214 DTR 209 (Surat)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Penny stock-Report of investigation wing-Reasons recorded were generic and based on borrowed satisfaction of investigation wing-No live nexus between tangible material and reason recorded-Reopening was based on mere suspicion-Reassessment is bad in law [S. 10(38), 45, 68, 148]

Rajesh Chunara v. ITO(E) (2022) 219 TTJ 965 (Jaipur)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Communication of reason to believe-No violation of directions of Supreme Court in GKN Driveshaft (India.) Ltd.’s case-Reassessment is valid [S. 148]

Young Indian v. ACIT (E) (2022)95 ITR 33 (SN)/ 218 TTJ 1 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Tangible material-Reasons Communicated to Assessee bearing signature of Assessing Officer and approved by CIT(E)-Sanction of Commissioner-Reassessment notice is valid-Jurisdiction-Merely because assessee had surrendered registration jurisdiction of Assessing Officer of exemption circle would not automatically change-Jurisdiction not choice of assessee-Reassessment notice issued by Officer of Exemption circle valid-Registration under section 12AA had been cancelled with retrospective effect, the challenge to the denial of exemption under section 11 was untenable-Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act was consequential and accordingly, to be dismissed [S. 11, 12, 12A, 12AA, 120, 148, 151, 234B]

Executive Board of The Methodist Church In India v. ACIT(E) (2022)95 ITR 30 (SN)(Mum) (Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Jurisdiction-Notice issued by Assessing Officer not having jurisdiction-Order passed by jurisdictional officer-Reassessment is void ab initio. [S. 120, 124, 127, 148]

J. S. Gujral Ranjeet Singh v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 246 (Delhi)(Trib) Ranjeet Singh v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 246 (Delhi)(Trib) Krishna Kumar Pant v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 246 (Delhi)(Trib) Sanjee Narayan v. Dy. CIT (2022) 95 ITR 246 (Delhi)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Perquisite-Transfer of shares at face value-Section not existing in statute-Non application of mind-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 2(24)(Iv), 148]

Escorts Finance Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022)96 ITR 45 (SN)(Delhi)(Trib)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Reasons–Additional ground-Jurisdiction-Addition made in reassessment proceedings with regard to head for which there was no notice-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148]