Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Yellaiah Setty v. ACIT (2022) 216 DTR 128 / 143 taxmann.com 326/ 327 CTR 600 (Telengana)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Order passed on grounds which are beyond subject matter of show cause notice-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 148, 148A((b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Shrenik Sudhir Vimawala v. ACIT (2022) 215 DTR 57 /327CTR 129 / 140 taxmann.com 236 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Objection was not considered-AO was required to pass final order under section 148A(d) after taking into consideration said objections-Matter remanded. [S. 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Hardev Singh v. ITO (2022) 214 DTR 146 / 326 CTR 875 / 140 taxmann.com 67 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Failure to consider the reply of the assessee-Order was quashed and matter was to be remanded back to Assessing Officer with a direction to decide notice under section 148A(b) by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law, after taking into account reply filed by assessee. [S. 148A(c), 148A(d), Art. 226]

Katlary Kariyana Merchant Sahkari Sarafi Mandali Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 215 DTR 125/ 327 CTR 138 / 140 taxmann.com 602 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Interest-Co-operative Banks and Nationalized Bank other than Co-operative Societies-Not explained properly-Income from other sources-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 80P(2)(i), 148, Art. 226]

Pentamedia Graphics Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 212 DTR 65 / 326 CTR 86 / 140 taxmann.com 10 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Order of single Judge, Pentamedia Graphics Ltd v. ACIT (2022) 212 DTR 671/ 326 CTR 93/ 138 taxmann.com 48 (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Deduction of tax at source-Payment to non-resident-Multimedia charges-Alternative remedy-Order of single Judge of High Court directing the assessee to participate in reassessment proceedings was affirmed. [S. 148, 195, Art. 226]

Cresent Co. v. CIT (2022) 214 DTR 77 / 137 taxmann.com 408 / 334 CTR 339(Orissa)(HC)/Moinuddin Enterprises v. CIT (2022) 214 DTR 77/ (2023)334 CTR 339 (Orissa HC)/ Ganpur Wine v. CIT (2022) 214 DTR 77 /(2023) 334 CTR 339 (Ori) (HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Non-issuance of sale memos-Mere non-issuance of sale memos could not have been a ground to reject entire account books particularly since it pertained to sale of country liquor to tribal populations.

TT Steel Service India Pvt Ltd. (Rep. by Mr. Junichi Takamasu) v. Addl. CIT (2022) 209 DTR 408 / 325 CTR 113 / 137 taxmann.com 151 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Order passed when the matter was pending before DRP-Order arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. [Art. 226]

SRS Mining v. UOI (2022) 328 CTR 510 / 217 DTR 321/ 141 taxmann.com 272 (Mad.)(HC).Notice is issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , ACIT v. SRS Mining (2023) 294 Taxman 604 (SC)

S. 142(2A) : Inquiry before assessment-Special audit-Audit report is not binding on revenue-Reasons for discarding it have to be recorded by Assessing Authority after proper discussion and same could not have been discarded summarily-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

SRS Mining v. UOI (2022) 328 CTR 510 / 217 DTR 321 /141 taxmann.com 272 (Mad.)(HC): Notice is issued in SLP filed by the Revenue , ACIT v. SRS Mining (2023) 294 Taxman 604 (SC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Authorisation-Authorization for search should be of competent authority and it is on satisfaction of authority that search warrant can be issued and it can be only of Competent Officer-Where search warrant was not issued by Competent Officer, it would vitiate search-Matter remanded. [Art. 226]

SRS Mining v. UOI (2022) 328 CTR 510 / 217 DTR 321/ 141 taxmann.com 272 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 132 : Search and seizure-Retrospective amendments made under sections 132(1), 132(1A) and 132A by insertion of Explanations preventing disclosure of reason to believe and reason to suspect in proceedings upto Tribunal are constitutionally valid. [S. 132(1), 132(IA), 132A, Art, 14, 19, 21, 226]