Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Chaturbhuj Gattani v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 295/336 CTR 369/233 DTR 457 (Raj)(HC) Saroj Gattani v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 295/336 CTR 369/233 DTR 457 (Raj)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Disclose of information-Notice and order disposing the objection is valid-Interpretation of taxing statutes-Literal Interpretation-It is settled that the words used in the provisions of a taxing statute are required to be given their plain meaning and nothing can be implied from or read into it.[S. 148, 148A(b) 148A(d) Art. 226]

Nainraj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2024)468 ITR 162/ 165 taxmann.com 674 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless Assessment-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Contrary to provisions of Section 151A-Order and consequential notice are set aside. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b), 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226]

Capitalg LP v. Asst. CIT (IT) (2024) 468 ITR 325/ 165 taxmann.com 718/341 CTR 1024 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Best judgment assessment-Faceless assessment-Jurisdictional Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice for reassessment in faceless mechanism-Notices and order is quashed. [S. 144, 144B,144C(1), 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151A(1) Art. 226]

Bhavani Glass And Plywood Traders v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 26 (Karn)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Failure to respond initial notices-Stoppage of business-Notice was not sent to existing E.mail-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and decide in accordance with law. [S. 147 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), Art. 226]

JD Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2024)468 ITR 178 / 301 Taxman 1 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless Assessment-Notice issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer-Similar issue pending before Supreme Court-Stay is granted till order to be passed by Supreme Court. [S. 147, 148, 148A(b) 148A(d), 151A, Art. 226]

Abhin Anilkumar Shah v. ITO (IT) (2024)468 ITR 350 / 301 Taxman 156 (Bom)(HC)

S. 148A: Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Faceless Assessment-Central charges and International Taxation charges-Notices issued and order passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside purview Of faceless mechanism-Notices and order illegal and without jurisdiction and hence set aside. [S. 119, 147, 148, 148A9(b) 148A(d) 151A, Art. 226]

PCCIT. v Nitin Nema (2024)468 ITR 105/ 168 taxmann.com 531 (SC) Editorial : Nitin Nema v. PCIT (2023) 458 ITR 690 /155 taxmann.com 276 / 334 CTR 545 (MP)(HC)

S. 148A : Reassessment-Conducting inquiry, providing opportunity before issue of notice-Notice after three years-Failure to file the return of income-Gross receipt of sale consideration not income chargeable to tax-Notice and consequential orders are quashed-SLP of Revenue is dismissed.[S. 2(24), 147, 148A(b), 148A(d), Art. 136]

PCIT v. Maharaji Education Trust (2024) 166 taxmann.com 197 (2024)468 ITR 634 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Search and Seizure-Trust-Wholly-Capitalisation fee-Statement of managing trustee under oath accepting receipts of capitation fee-Order of Settlement Commission for subsequent year-Order of Tribunal quashing the reassessment is held to be erroneous and set aide.[S. 10(23C)(iv), 11, 12, 12A, 12AA, 132, 148, 245D(6), 260A]

Asst. CIT v. AIM Fincon Pvt. Ltd. (2024)468 ITR 110/301 Taxman 169 (SC) Editorial: AIM Fincon Pvt Ltd v. ACIT (2023) 457 ITR 737 (Guj)(HC) / 2022 SCC Online Guj 2641

S. 147: Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts-Change of opinion-Notice and order disposing the objection is quashed-Delay of 429 days in filing SLP. SLP of Revenue is dismissed as the reasons assigned for explaining the delay are neither satisfactory nor sufficient. [S. 148, Art. 136]

Toyota Tausho India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (TP) (2024)468 ITR 29 (Karn)(HC)

S.143(3): Assessment-Transfer Pricing-Arm’s length price International Transactions-Limitation-Service of notice-Order of Transfer Pricing Officer is not signed digitally or manually before limitation Circular dated February 2018 (2018) 401 ITR (St) 176-Order is not valid.[S.92C, 119, 144C, Art. 226]