Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Classic Stripes (P.) Ltd v. DCIT (2024) 162 taxmann.com 467 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Application of mind-An order passed under section 148A(d) without considering the assessee’s reply and by raising new allegations for the first time in the order itself is invalid due to non‑application of mind and is liable to be set aside. [S. 148,148A(b) 148A(d), 151, Art. 226]

Middle Income Group Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 161 taxmann.com 455 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Opportunity of hearing-Order under section 148A(d)-Must be a speaking order-Failure to deal with assessee’s submissions renders order invalid. [S. 45, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd v. ACIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 663 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Unsigned notice –Failure to file return-Writ petition held not maintainable for failure to follow procedure laid down in GKN Driveshafts case-Directed to file the return of income along with all objections, including the validity of the notice, before the Assessing Officer for disposal via a speaking order. [S. 139, Art. 226]

Vertiv Energy (P.) Ltd v. ACIT (2024) 160 taxmann.com 696 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 148: Reassessment-Notice to non-existent entity-Amalgamation-Notice issued to an amalgamating company is invalid where the basis for reopening collapses. [S. 2(1B),147 292B, Art. 226]

PMP Auto Components (P.) Ltd v. DCIT [2024] 159 taxmann.com 307 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Amalgamation-Non existing company-Notice to non-existent amalgamating company is fundamentally invalid-Error is not a mere procedural or clerical mistake that can be rectified under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. [S. 147, 292B, Art. 226]

Modern Living Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2024] 164 taxmann.com 763 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Within four years-Reason to believe-Intimation under S. 143(1)-Reopening notice based on a system-generated alert from the Non-Filer Management System (NMS) without independent application of mind is invalid. [S. 68,139, 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

PIEM Hotels Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 162 taxmann.com 703 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Change of opinion-Enquiry during original assessment-Where Assessing Officer has raised a specific query during original assessment proceedings to which the assessee has replied, the issue is deemed to have been examined-Reopening assessment on the very same issue, even if not discussed in the assessment order, constitutes an impermissible change of opinion. [S. 37(1), 142(1), 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. [2024] 162 taxmann.com 390 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Within four years-Change of opinion-Prior period expenditure-Order of tribunal quashing the reassessment is affirmed. [S. 37(1), 260A]

Paranjape Schemes (Construction) Ltd v. DCIT [2024] 160 taxmann.com 730 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Reason to believe-Jurisdiction-Unexplained money-Notice based on fundamentally wrong facts pertaining to a different entity-Constitutes non-application of mind-Reopening invalid. [S 69A, 148, 151, Art. 226]

Fine Arts Society v. DDIT (E) [2024] 159 taxmann.com 776 (Bom.) (HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue dismissed, DDIT (E) v. Fine Arts Society (2025) 307 Taxman 224 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Charitable or religious trust –-Non-application of mind-Receipts from charitable activities mistaken for commercial income-Reopening notice based on mechanical reasoning and factual errors quashed. [S. 11, 143(1) 148, Art. 226]