Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Loku Ram Malik v. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 159 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Pendency of assessment-Time limit for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) was not expired-Notice issued for reassessment was quashed. [S. 143(1)(a), 143(2), 143(3), 147]

Jagdish Kumar Basantani v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 39 (MP)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Constitutional validity-The delegation authorized being only for the purpose of enlarging limitation under a valid law, such delegation could not be exercised to resurrect the provision of law that stood omitted from the statute book by virtue of its substitution made by the Finance Act, 2021, w.e.f. 01.04.2021-Directions issued. [Art. 226]

Sri Jagannath Promoters and Builders v. Dy. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 192 / 209 DTR 188 / 324 CTR 233 / 284 Taxman 469 (Ori.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-No tangible material-Not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

N. S. Srinivasan v. ACIT (NO. 2) (2022) 440 ITR 376 / 211 DTR 316 / 325 CTR 511 / 284 Taxman 42 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : decision of single judge in N. S. Srinivasan v. ACIT (NO. 1) (2022) 440 ITR 367 / 325 CTR 521(Mad)(HC) is reversed

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Notice was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Priti Paras Savla v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 472 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Penny stock-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was held to be not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Baroque Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 463 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Depreciation-Technical error by Auditor-Notice to withdraw the depreciation was held to be not valid. [S. 32, 148, Form No 3CD, Art. 226]

AMI Ashish Shah v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 417 / 212 DTR 14/ 328 CTR 562 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No tangible material-Non-Resident-Not offering the interest and bonus received on surrender of policy before maturity-Provision of Section 80CC(2) is not applicable-Reassessment was quashed [S. 10(10)(d), 80CC(2), 143(1), 148, Art. 226]

Chhagan Chandrakant Bhujbal v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 359 / 209 DTR 17 / 324 ITR 133 / 286 Taxman 244(Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Fabricated bogus documents-After disposal of objection the assessee participated in the proceedings-Sanction was issued within few hours of receiving information cannot be held to be non application of mind-Reassessment proceedings was held to be valid. [S. 69A, 143(3), 148, 151, Art. 226]

CIT v. Prestige Estate Projects Pvt Ltd (2022) 440 ITR 343 (Karn.) (HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Construction business-Change of method from project completion method to percentage completion method-Revenue neutral-Revised Accounting Standard 7-Held to be valid.

CIT v. Mohan and Co (2022) 440 ITR 247 (Raj.)(HC) CIT v. Agrasen Jewellers (2022) 440 ITR 247 (Raj.)(HC)

S. 145 : Method of accounting-Rejection of books of account-Bogus purchases-Order of Tribunal modifying the quantum was set aside-Cost of Rs.5000 was imposed on the assessee. [S. 145(3)]