Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 441 ITR 25/ 211 DTR 227/ 325 CTR 545 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 215 : Interest payable by assessee-Waiver of interest-Regular assessment means first order / original assessment-Delay not attributable to the assessee the interest is not leviable. [S. 139(8), 143(3), 144, 215(3) ITR, 1962, Rule, 40(1)]

Implenia Services and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (Bom.)(HC) (UR)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice issued to non-existing entity-Notice invalid-Notice could not be corrected u/s. 292B of the Act. [S. 292B, Art. 226]

Karnataka State Co-Operative Apex Bank Ltd. v. DCIT (2021) 283 Taxman 98 (2022) 211 DTR 63/ 325 CTR 212 (Karn.)(HC).Editorial: Notice issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , Dy. CIT v. Karnataka State Co-op Apex Bank Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 165/ 114 CCH 357 (SC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Assessment processed u/s. 143(1)-Fresh claim of loss in reassessment proceedings-Held to be allowable-Deletion of Explanation to section 143 from 1-6-1999, intimation under section 143(1) ceases to be an order for purposes of section 264. [S. 143(1), 147, 264]

Dhiren Anantraj Modi v. ITO (The Chamber’s Journal-January-P. 73 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Within four years-Reasons based on erroneous and incorrect facts-Non application of mind-Notice was quashed. [S. 143(1), 148, 151 Art. 226]

Conopco Inc v. UOI (2022) ( 2022 ) 285 Taxman 472/ 215 DTR 283/ 329 CTR 773 /BCAJ-January-P. 47 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Within four years-Change of opinion-Long term Capital gains-Applicability of Rate of tax at 10% or 20%-Examined in the original assessment proceedings-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 48, 112, 148, Art. 226]

Peninsula Land Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 439 ITR 582 / (2022) 134 taxmann.com 33 / 284 Taxman 556 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Recorded reasons must indicate the manner in which the Assessing Officer has come to the conclusion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment-Reason recorded cannot be substituted-Reassessment Notice was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Rich Feel Health and Beauty (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2021) 132 taxmann.com 228 (2022) 284 Taxman 286 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Business expenditure-Advertisement and marketing expenditure-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art. 226]

Trendsutra Client Services (P.) Ltd. v. NEAC (2021) 283 Taxman 558 / ( 2022) 19 ITR -OL 203 (Bom.)(HC)/Editorial: ACIT v. Trendsutra Client Services P. Ltd. (2023)453 ITR 219 (SC) , SLP of the Revenue dismissed , with the liberty to the Revenue to proceed in accordance with law .

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Order passed without show cause and draft assessment order-Order was quashed. [S. 143(3), 144B(xi)(b), Art. 226]

Mateen Pyarali Dholakia v. UOI (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-October-P. 105 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Order passed without considering the reply-Incorrect affidavit by the Assessing Officer-Show cause notice was issued for perjury proceedings-Cost of Rs 10000 was imposed payable to PM Cares Fund-Order was set aside. [Art. 226]

Bhavi Homes Pvt. Ltd. v. NFAC (2021) The Chamber’s Journal-December-P. 165 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Order passed without providing the draft assessment order-Order was quashed-Directed the revenue to prepare draft assessment order as prescribed by law. [Art. 226]