Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sharad Garg v. ITO (2022) 287 Taxman 207/113 CCH 213 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Validity of E-notices-Mere digitally signing of notice under section 148 would not be issuance of notice, reassessment notices would be said to be digitally issued on date when same were e-mailed to petitioner-Since deadline for passing assessment order in most cases was 31-3-2022, proceedings pursuant to impugned reassessment notices were to be stayed till further orders. [S. 147, 149, Art. 226]

Vahanvati Consultants (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 448 ITR 258/138 taxmann.com 51 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP of Revenue disposed off granting liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law by way of a review before High Court, ACIT v. Vahanvati Consultants (P) Ltd. (2022) 287 Taxman 176/131 CCH 161 (SC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Merger-Succession to business otherwise than on death-Notice issued in the name of non-existent company-Notice is bad in law. [S. 147, 170, 292B, Art. 226]

Sanjay Kapur v. ACIT (2022) 138 taxmann.com 206 (Delhi)(HC) Editorial : SLP of assessee dismissed as withdrawn, Sanjay Kapur v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 225 /113 CCH 160 (SC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Deposit of cash in Bank-Unexplained money-Demonetization deposit-No supporting evidence was available-Reassessment notice was justified. [S. 69A, 148, Art. 226]

Kedar Nath Babbar v. ACIT (2022) 287 Taxman 417/215 DTR 227/ 329 CTR 131 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Unexplained expenditure-Information from investigation wing-Overdraft account-Interest free loan-Reassessment notice is justified. [S. 69C, 148, Art. 226]

Awlesh Kumar Singh v. UOI (2022) 287 Taxman 596/(2023) 332 CTR 231/ 224 DTR 300 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Unexplained moneys-Cash deposited in bank-Demonetization period-Explanation was furnished in the assessment proceedings-Reassessment proceedings on same set of facts would amount to mere change of opinion-Notice was quashed. [S. 69A, 148, Art. 226]

Pushpa Yadav v. ITO (2022) 287 Taxman 305/215 DTR 66/327 CTR 333 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Information from Investigation Wing-Search and Seizure-Purchase of property-Cash payment-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 132, 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

Pushpa Uttamchand Mehta v. ITO (2022) 287 Taxman 483 / 114 CCH 314 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Penny Stock-Bogus capital gains-Accommodation entries-Information from Investigation Wing-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 68, 69, 148, Art. 226]

Ambuj Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 287 Taxman 490/ 212 DTR 460/ 326 CTR 352 (All.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Share application money-Shell companies-Operating from Kolkata-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 69A, 148, Art. 226]

Vapi Infrastructure and Industrial Township LLP v. ITO (2022) 287 Taxman 468/114 CCH 97 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Source of loan explained-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice is not sustainable. [S. 68, 133(6), 148, Art. 226]

Tech Engg Project Services and Equipments (I) (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 287 Taxman 24/ 220 CTR 209/ 329 CTR 665 113 CCH 282 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Carryforward and set off of brought forward losses-Business expenditure-Tax Audit Report-Provided all details in repose to notice-Provided break-up of head-wise expenses and these figures were also mentioned in statement of profit and loss filed by assessee, reopening of assessment being mere change of opinion was not justified. [S. 37(1), 72, 148, Art. 226]