Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Wyeth Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 211 DTR 393/ 329 CTR 803 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-After the expiry of four years-Approval and reasons recorded of same date-Sanction was not properly obtained-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Novelty Properties & Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 209 DTR 185 / 325 CTR 373 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction for issue of notice-Reason recorded was furnished of other assessee-Two further reasons were signed by successor officer and no fresh approval was obtained-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Sea Glimpse Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 209 DTR 318 / 324 CTR 535 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction-Recorded reasons are not correct-Date of return was filed on 25th November 2014, where as in the recorded reasons it was stated as 27th October, 2016-Assessee holds shares 0.01%, i.e. 10 shares in itself-How can a company hold its own shares-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Sagar Bullion Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 324 ITR 146 / 209 DTR 281 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction-After the expiry of four years-Sanction was given mechanically-Without application of mind-Reason recorded stated that the assessment was completed u/s 143(1), whereas the assessment was u/s. 143(3)-Business of jewellery-Reason stated that failure to disclose salary-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Lintas India (P) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 324 CTR 539 / 209 DTR 473 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment-Sanction-After the expiry of four years-Sanction was granted by Addl. CIT and not PCIT-Reference contained another entity-Non application of mind-Order was quashed and set a side. [S. 148, 151, Art. 226]

Pavan Morarka v. ACIT (2022) 211 DTR 201 / 325 CTR 377 / 136 taxmann.com 2 (Bom.)(HC) Racahna Morarrka v. ITO (2022) 211 DTR 201 / 325 CTR 377 / 136 taxmann.com 2 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 150 : Assessment-Order on appeal-Time limit for reopening of assessment-Deemed dividend-Section 150 will apply only to reopening assessment to give effect to finding or direction in appellate orders of CIT(A) and not to appellate orders of any High Court u/s. 260A. [S. 2(22)(e), 116, 147, 148, 149, Art. 226]

River Valley Meadows and Township (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 284 Taxman 536 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Notice was issued prior approval of Additional Commissioner-Notice was quashed. [S. 147, 151(2), Art. 226]

Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2022) 210 DTR 33 / 325 CTR 95 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Within period of four years-Change of opinion-Foreign remittance-Failure to deduct tax at source-No failure to disclose material facts-Issue was considered in the original assessment proceedings-Not specifically dealt in the assessment order-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 14, 40(a)(i), 90, 91, 92CA(3), 143(3), 148, 195, Art. 226]

Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. NFAC (2022) 211 DTR 442 / 327 CTR 482 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-No new tangible material-Reason recorded and reasons stated in objections disposing the objection are different-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 2(47), 47(iv), 47A, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Patel Engineering Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 210 CTR 185 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Survey-No failure to disclose material facts-Information from DDIT-Borrowed satisfaction-Documents of report relied on must be furnished along with recorded reasons-Principle of natural justice-Judgements relied on without bringing notice to the assessee-Reasons cannot be improved or supplemented-Reassessment notice was quashed [S. 133A, 148, Art. 226]