Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Upal Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 441 ITR 636 / 211 DTR 196 / 134 taxmann.com 113 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Leave and licence agreement-Income from house property-Developing and running shopping mall-Income from business-No failure to disclose any material facts-Change of opinion-Notice issued by succeeding Assessing Officer-Notice was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited v. ACIT (2022) 441 ITR 74 /217 DTR 427 / 134 taxmann.com 96 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Transfer pricing-Notice stating that fact had not been disclosed-Mere statement that there had been failure to disclose material facts is not sufficient-Reassessment notice on the basis of change of opinion was quashed. [S. 92CA(3), 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Dentsu Aegis Network Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 441 ITR 41 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Set off of unabsorbed depreciation or business loss-Book profit- No new Tangible material-Notice and order rejecting objection raised by Assessee was set aside. [S. 115JB, 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

Vodafone Idea Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 211 DTR 99 / 325 CTR 241 / 285 Taxman 381 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-The documents and submissions which were available before the AO, before passing of the original assessment order;-Not even a whisper as to what was not disclosed-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 148 Art, 226]

Monarch & Qureshi Builders v. UOI (2022) 284 Taxman 643 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Real estate agent-ITS data-Non disclosure of turnover-Details were furnished in the scrutiny assessment-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 69, 148, Art. 226]

Ashraf Alibhai Nathani v. ACIT (2022) 211 DTR 336 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sale of shares-Judgement relied was existence before passing of original assessment order-Error due to oversight-Issue discussed and considered by the Assessing officer-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 54EC, 132, 143(3), 148, 153A, Art. 226]

Pankaj v. NEAC (2022) 441 ITR 502 / 211 DTR 313 / 325 CTR 567 / 286 Taxman 228 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Reply filed was not taken in to consideration-Order remanded with the direction to pass the order in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. [S. 143(3), 144B(7)(viii), 144B(7)(xii), Art. 226]

Goa Industrial Development Corporation (Through its Managing Director) v. NFAC (2022) 442 ITR 212 / 285 Taxman 464 / 209 DTR 57 / 324 CTR 129 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Failure to issue show cause notice and draft assessment order-Order was quashed and set aside-Directed to pass assessment order by following due procedure as contemplated under section 144B of the Act and giving an opportunity of hearing through video-Conferencing. [S. 2(15), 12A,144, 148, 156, 222, 232, Art. 226]

Zeus Housing Company v. UOI (2022)441 ITR 666 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Order passed without considering the reply filed by the assessee-Order and consequential demand notice was set aside-Strictures-Officers are not truthful in filing their affidavit-Directed to circulate copy of this order to Commissioner of income-tax (Judicial) Mumbai and also to all Commissioner (Judicial) in the Country-Department to be truthful and accept their mistakes instead of filing false affidavit. [S. 156, Art. 226]

Pankaj v. NEAC (2022) 441 ITR 502 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Proper opportunity of personal hearing not given-Matter remanded. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]