Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sunil Jain. v. ITD (2022) 289 Taxman 688/ 20 ITR -OL409 (Delhi)(HC)/Editorial : SLP dismissed , Sunil Jain v. ITD (2023) 459 ITR 276 /295 Taxman 10(SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash deposit in bank-Denomination-Pendency of appeal-limited scrutiny-. No question was asked in the original assessment proceedings-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 69A, 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Graphite India Ltd. (2022) 289 Taxman 118 (Cal.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-SEB price used as indicator of realizable value of power for claim-Assessing Officer had elaborately questioned assessee on very same issue during scrutiny assessment and assessee had submitted relevant details and documents-No fresh material-Reassessment for review of original assessment is not valid. [S. 80IA, 148]

Kone Elevator India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 289 Taxman 411/(2023) 450 ITR 338/ / 332 CTR 328/ 226 DTR 189 ( (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Transfer pricing-Reference to TPO-Section 144C(4) only states that AO has to pass an assessment order in accordance with provisions of Act and it nowhere states that reopening notice can be issued only after passing an assessment order-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 92CA, 144C (4), 148, Art. 226]

Cognizant Technology Solutions India (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 289 Taxman 660/ (2023) 453 ITR 372 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Mark-to-Market loss-No new material-Notice for reassessment and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 14A, 37(1), 72, 148, Art. 226]

East Coast Consultants (India) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 289 Taxman 36 / 217 DTR 19/(2023) 450 ITR 114 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial: Order of single judge is affirmed, East Coast Consultants (India) Ltd. v. DCIT, W.P.No. 10699 of 2022 dt. 25-5-2022/( 2022) 328 CTR 247 / ( 2023) 450 ITR 112 (Mad)( HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-Excess cost of acquisition of property-Question of fact-Alternative remedy-Directed to file an appeal.Directions for maintenance of status qua subject to payment of 10 percent of demand . [S. 143(3), 147, Art. 226]

PCIT v. Salarpuria Simplex Dwelling LLP. (2022) 289 Taxman 264 / 216 DTR 425 (2023) 455 ITR 712(Cal.)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Construction and development of property-Project completion method-Principle of consistency-Not justified in adopting percentage completion method.

Vikas Singhal v. NFA (2022 289 Taxman 243 (Delhi) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Personal hearing request was rejected-Order was quashed and set aside-Matter remanded back to Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. [S. 143(3),144B(7)(vii), Art. 226]

Muhavoor Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Ltd. v. NFAC (2022) 289 Taxman 471 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Principle of natural justice-Technical difficulties-Order passed without granting an opportunity of hearing with sufficient time-Order was set aside. [S. 80P, 144 147, Art. 226]

Afsha Talwar v. UOI (2022) 289 Taxman 696 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Not granting personal hearing-Unexplained investments-Mutual funds-Joint names-Factual dispute-Pendency of appeal-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 69, 156, 246A, Art, 226]

CBDT v. Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food (P.) Ltd. (2022) 289 Taxman 148 / 220 DTR 463 / ( 2023) 450 ITR 4/ 331 CTR 92 (SC) Editorial : Order of High Court, affirmed, CBDT v. Vasudeva Adigas Fast Food (P.) Ltd (2021) 437 ITR 67/ 282 Taxman 48(Karn)(HC)

S. 139 : Return of income-Condonation of delay-litigation between promoters and investors-Beyond control of assessee-PCIT and Additional CIT recommending condonation of delay-Rejection of application by CBDT was set aside by High Court was affirmed. [S. 119(1), 119(2)(b), Art, 136, 226]