Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sarika Kansal v. ACIT [2025] 171 taxmann.com 545 /303 Taxman 636 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Unexplained investment-Assessment cannot be opened twice for the same reason-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed and set aside. [S. 69, 148, Art.226]

Imperial Consultants and Securities Ltd v. DCIT (2025) 473 ITR 217 / 303 Taxman 263 (Bom.) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest on borrowed funds-Change of opinion-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment proceedings is quashed and set aside.[S. 36(1)(iii), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Shrenik Kumar N. Baldota v. DCIT (2025) 171 taxmann.com 181/ 473 ITR 195 (Bom)(HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Audit objection-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 57, 143(3), 147, Art. 226]

Deloitte Haskins and Sells v. ACIT (2024) 166 taxmann.com 253 / (2025) 473 ITR 337 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Material facts not considered-When the assessee’s objections to alleged foreign receipts are not adequately considered by the revenue authorities in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a remand to the Assessing Officer with directions. [S. 133(6), 148, Art. 226]

Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 205 (Bom.) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Sanction should be given only after due application of mind-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, 151, Art. 226]

Lason India Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2025) 473 ITR 263 /171 taxmann.com 261(Mad.) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Not following mandatory requirements of section 144C(2)-Assessment Order cannot be treated as draft Assessment Order-Proceedings before DRP and Tribunal bad in law-Not curable defect-Defect cannot be cured by issuing corrigendum-Assessment order is void. [S. 144C(1), 292BB]

Rapiscan Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. DIT (IT) (2025) 473 ITR 485 /170 Taxmann.com 753 (Telangana) (HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Despatch-When electronic records enters portal or computer resource it is treated to be receipt by recipient Assessing Officer or concerned authority-The Assessment Orders were passed beyond the period of one month of receipt of directions by DRP, being barred by limitation, is set aside. [S. 144C(5), 144C (13),Information Technology Act, 2000, S. 2(k),13(1), Art. 226]

Religare Enterprises Ltd. v. NFAC (2025) 172 taxmann.com 200 / 472 ITR 329 (Delhi)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Remand by Tribunal-Scrutiny assessment with certain disallowance u/s 14A-Remand by the Tribunal on the issues to JAO-The order giving effect to the ITAT’s directions passed by the JAO-The jurisdiction assumed subsequently by the NFAC on completed assessment by the JAO without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. [S. 14A, 143(3), 147, 148, 254(1), Art. 226]

Neha Bhawsingka v. UOI (2024) 169 taxmann.com 669 /(2025) 472 ITR 335 (Cal)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Ex parte order-Service of notice to an unregistered email address-Violation of principles of natural justice-Assessment order, demand notice and penalty notices are quashed and set aside-Department has given liberty to issue fresh notices if necessary in accordance with law. [S. 143(2),282, Art. 226]

Fusion Granito Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2025) 472 ITR 725 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Alternative remedy-Denial of opportunity of hearing on ground technically not feasible through video conference-Assessing Officer is directed to give opportunity of hearing in designated area of Department’s office-Assessment order quashed and set aside.[S. 143(3),263, Art. 226]