Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


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)]

Criteo Singapore Pte. Ltd. v. CIT (IT) (2022) 440 ITR 242 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Foreign Company-Draft Assessment order was not passed-DTAA-India-Singapore-Demand raised was stayed. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]

Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 140 / 209 DTR 248 / 324 CTR 426 / 285 Taman 56 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment- Non-Resident-Draft assessment order was served-Objections were considered-Writ is not maintainable. [S. 246A, Art. 226]

Rmsi Private Limited v. NFAC(2022) 440 ITR 245/ 285 Taxman 708 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Order passed without show cause notice and draft assessment order. Directed to file an affidavit. [S. 143(3), 144B(9), Art. 226]

Magick Woods Exports P. Ltd. v. Add. CIT (2022) 440 ITR 607 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Violation of principle of natural justice-Request for adjournment to notice and draft assessment order-Neither rejected nor duly intimated-Order was set aside. [S. 143(3), Art. 226]