Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Shahlon Silk Industries P. Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 451 ITR 184 / 223 DTR 253 / 330 CTR 549 / 292 Taxman 18(Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Amalgamation-Notice of reassessment issued in name of amalgamating company instead of a new company-Reassessment notice and order disposing of the objection was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Nila Infrastructures Ltd. v. ACIT (2023) 451 ITR 283 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Borrowed satisfaction-Communication from Kolkota-Notice and the disposing objection was quashed [S. 40(a)(ia), 115JAA, 148 Art, 226]

Saurashtra Infra and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2023)451 ITR 51 /149 taxmann.com 388 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Infrastructure Development-Audit objection-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice of reassessment based on Audit objection-Reassessment notice and order disposing of the objection was quashed. [S. 80IA(4), 115JB, 148, Art. 226]

Asian Paints Ltd. v ACIT (2023)451 ITR 45 / 221 DTR 457/ 330 CTR 560/148 taxmann.com 99 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Advertisement and sales promotion-Notice should specify material not disclosed-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice is bad in law. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Sapna Flour Mills Ltd. v. UOI (2023)451 ITR 521/ (2022) 145 taxmann.com 557 (All)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of assessee is dismissed , Sapna Flour Mills Ltd. v. UOI (2023) 295 Taxman 119 (SC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Amendment by Finance Act of 2022-Does not curtail benefits to the assessee-Amendment valid-Natural justice-Opportunity of the hearing was not granted-Reassessment was not valid-Order was set aside. [S. 144B(7), 144B(9), Art. 226]

Parul Bharat Shah v. NFAC (2023) 451 ITR 360/ 291 Taxman 294 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Requests for extension of time to file a reply and personal hearing was not responded-Assessment order, notices of demand and penalty notice were set aside. [S. 143(3), 156, 270A, 274, Art. 226]

AMEC Foster Wheeler Iberia Slu-India Project Office v. Dy. CIT(IT) (2023) 451 ITR 117 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 143(2) : Assessment-Notice-Reassessment-Non-issue of notice within prescribed period-Assessment order is bad in law. [S. 147, 148, 153, Art. 226]

Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya v. UOI (2023) 451 ITR 170 / 222 DTR 73 / 330 CTR 624 / 292 Taxman 34 (SC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Order must be communicated to the assessee-Order directing special audit never communicated to assessee-Assessment order not passed becoming barred by time-If special audit directed or ordered was communicated to the assessee, time for assessment further extended in terms of provisions. [Art. 226]

Shailesh Vitthalbhai Patel v. CCIT (2023) 451 ITR 504 / 290 Taxman 466 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 119 : Central Board of Direct Taxes-Return-Delay of 33 days in filing of return-Application to Chief Commissioner-Refusal to condone the delay was not justified. [S. 119(2)(b), 139, Art. 226]

CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (2023) 451 ITR 428 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 115JB : Book profit-Provision for bad and doubtful debts-Amendment with Effect from 1-4-1998-Order of Tribunal for AY. 1998-99 following the Supreme Court decision for AY. 1997-98. The matter was remanded to Tribunal to consider the amendment. [S. 254(1), 260A]