Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Rajesh Poddar v. ITO ( 2023] 152 taxmann.com 98 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice – Recorded reason was not provided – Order of assessment is bad in law-Faceless Assessment Scheme who shall proceed in the matter after providing to the Petitioner the reasons recorded for reopening. The proceedings be completed preferably within a period of three months from today. [S. 144B, 147, Art. 226]

Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 248 / 292 Taxman 258 / 455 ITR 92 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Search and Seizure–Third party premises-Satisfaction note-Failure to furnish documents- Assessment order quashed and set aside – Matter was remanded back for adjudication afresh. [S. 131, 132, 147, 151, Art. 14, 226]

CLSA India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 149 taxmann.com 380 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice – Amalgamation- Company ceased to exist- Succession to business otherwise than on death -Non existing company – Amalgamation – PAN in name of non -Existent company remained active – Notice issued was quashed. [S. 148, 170, Art. 226]

Pico Capital (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2023] 150 taxmann.com 488 / 293 Taxman 347/ (2024) 460 ITR 508 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice–Amalgamation- Company ceased to exist- Estoppel against law- Reassessment notice and order was quashed. [S. 148(A))(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi v. ACIT [2023]458 ITR 326 / 294 Taxman 13 / 151 taxmann.com 541 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice-Dead person-Issuing a notice to a correct person is not merely a procedural requirement but a condition precedent for a notice to be valid in law – Order null and void. [S. 148A(b) 148A(d)), Art. 226]

Shahana Nayak v. ITO [2023] 151 taxmann.com 482 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment–Notice-Un-explained investment -Wrongly stating that return was filed in terms of section 119(2)(b)- Exparte order making addition as income from undisclosed sources – Order was set aside – Directed to treat the return filed in terms of section 148 of the Act. [S. 69, 119(2)(b), 144, 147, 292B, Art. 226]

Lok Developers Registered Partnership Firm v. Dy. CIT (2023) 455 ITR 399 / 149 taxmann.com 93 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment – Service of notice – Primary email id – Notice issued on the secondary notice – Failure to participate in the proceedings – Service of the notice is not valid – Reassessment was quashed. [S. 144, 144B, 147, 282, Rule 127, Art. 226]

D.K. Realty India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 468 / 292 Taxman 328 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Advance – Change of opinion – Notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 69A 148, Art. 226]

B.U. Bhandari Autolines (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT [2023] 456 ITR 56/ 292 Taxman 195/ 331 CTR 240 (Bom)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed on account of delay of 354 days as well as on merits . ACIT v. B. U. Bhandari Autolines Pvt. Ltd. (2025)472 ITR 1 /171 taxmann.com 130 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- Accommodation entries – Shell company – Deposit demonetized cash- Sales Borrowed satisfaction – Not independently applied the mind- Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 69A, 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. NESCO Ltd. [2023] 291 Taxman 286 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment – With in four years – No tangible material – Business expenditure -Compensation- Provision for compensation – Pending for settlement – Reassessment is held to be bad in law. [S. 37(1), 145, 148, Art. 226]