Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Krishana Goel v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 213 (P& H)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Response to show cause notice was not considered-No jurisdiction error-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148A(d), Art. 226, 227]

Indure (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 142 taxmann.com 66/ 216 DTR 233 / 327 CTR 761 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed, Indure (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 288 Taxman 721 (SC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Unexplained expenditure-Bogus purchase-Non supply of clear and legible copies-Cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings-Three working days to file reply-Natural justice not violated-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148(d), Art. 226]

Gian Castings (P) Ltd. v. CBDT (2022) 140 taxmann.com 318 (P& H)(HC) Editorial: SLP of assessee dismissed, Gian Castings (P) Ltd. v. CBDT (2022) 288 Taxman 167 (SC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Reassessment proceeding was at its intermediate stage and was yet to be concluded by statutory authority-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, Art. 226, 227]

FTC Overseas v. CBDT (2022) 288 Taxman 321 /(2023) 456 ITR 686 / 332 CTR 724 (P & H)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Response filed to notice not considered-Proceedings not concluded-Interim stage-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226, 227]

Uphill Farms (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 144 / 213 DTR 410 / 326 CTR 671 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Unexplained expenditure-Recorded reasons refers transaction amounting Rs. 45 lakhs-Documentary evidence was filed to show that no transaction of Rs. 45 lakhs was entered during the financial year-Reassessment notice and order disposing objection was quashed-Cost of Rs.5,000 was imposed on the Revenue. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

Sarwan Kumar Poddar v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 763 / 220 DTR 120/ 329 CTR 764 (Cal.)(HC) Editorial : Order of single judge , Sarwan Kumar Poddar v. UOI (2022) 220 DTR 127/ 329 DTR 771(Cal)( HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Natural justice-Loan-Search-Neither furnished copy of statement nor an opportunity of cross examination was provided-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed and set aside-Matter Remanded back to Assessing Officer to take a fresh decision after furnishing all details and documents sought for by asseseee. [S. 69C, 148, Art. 226]

Distributors India C and F v. UOI (2022) 288 Taxman 230 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Income as per annual information statement in Form No. 26AS was higher than shown by assessee in P/L account-Non disclosure of primary facts-Notice issued after investigation-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 148, 194A 194C 194J, Form No 26AS, Art. 226]

Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 288 Taxman 587 / 216 DTR 131 / 327 CTR 792 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Interest on borrowed capital-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 36(1)(iii), 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Fibres and Fabrics International (P) Ltd. (2022) 139 taxmann.com 561 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of Revenue dismissed, PCIT v. Fibres and Fabrics International (P) Ltd.(2022) 288 Taxman 20 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sales commission-Survey-Change of opinion-Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment was affirmed. [S. 133A, 148, 260A]

Sunil Hanskrishna Khanna v. ACIT (2022) 139 taxmann.com 555 / 288 Taxman 46 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Information from DDIT (Inv)-Accommodation entries-Bogus capital gains and losses-Penny stock scrips-Original assessment proceedings transaction was treated as bonafide-Even if it was assumed that Assessing Officer had committed a mistake, still, assessment could not have been reopened to remedy error-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 45, 69, 148, Art. 226]