Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Karti P. Chidambaram v. PDIT (Inv.) (2021) 436 ITR 340 / 204 DTR 18 / 321 CTR 273 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search- Satisfaction note issued by the Assessing Officer-Notice under section 153C is held to be valid. [S. 132, 147, 148, 153A, Art. 226]

6th Sense Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. PDIT (2021) 436 ITR 90 / 203 DTR 177/ (2023) 334 CTR 172 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Service of notice-Notice without recording satisfaction is held to be not valid-Subsequent notice after valid satisfaction is held to be valid-High court can find out whether proper satisfaction is recorded or not, however cannot consider sufficiency of reasons [S. 132, 282, 282A Rule, 127, 127A, Art. 226]

India Awake For Transparency v. Chairman, CCBDT (No. 2) (2021) 436 ITR 512 (Karn.)(HC) Editorial : Decision in Single judge in India Awake For Transparency v. Chairman, CCBDT (No. 1) (2021)436 ITR 442 (Karn) (HC) affirmed.

S. 153A : Assessment-Search-Public Interest Litigation-Allegation of evasion of tax-Filing different petitions on same subject matter-Practice deprecated-Income-Tax Informants Reward Scheme, 2018. [Art. 226]

Sripathi Subbaraya Manohara (Mrs.) v. PCIT (2021) 436 ITR 469 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Death of assessee-Notice issued to deceased assessee-Notice and order not valid. [S. 144, 147, 271F, 271(1)(c), Art. 226]

A.P. Oree (Kartha) v. ITO (2021)436 ITR 3 / 203 DTR 153 / 282 Taxman 57 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Hindu Undivided Family-Partition-Sale consideration-Exemption-Reassessment notice to tax capital gains in the hands of Karta is held to be not valid. [S. 45, 54F, 148, 171, Art. 226]

Sutherland Global Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2021) 436 ITR 122/ 207 DTR 408/ 323 CTR 690 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Failure to deduct tax at source-Issue not considered in the original assessment–Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts or go in to sufficiency of reasons for reopening-Reassessment notice is valid. [S. 9(1)(i), 40(a)(ia) 148, Art. 226]

Kantibhai Dharamshibhai Narola v. ACIT (2021) 436 ITR 302 (Guj.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Sale of land-Borrowed satisfaction-Non application of mind before issue of notice-Notice is held to be not valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

PCIT v. M. R. Narayanan (2021) 436 ITR 520 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Change of opinion-Short term capital gains-Dividend-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 10 (38), 148]

GE Oil and Gas India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2021)436 ITR 168 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Transfer Pricing-Arm’s length price-Draft Assessment order mandatory-Not curable defects-Order quashed [S. 143(3), 271(1)(c)]

Durr India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2021)436 ITR 111 / 203 DTR 419 / 323 CTR 86(Mad.)(HC)

S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Tribunal remanding the matter-Assessing Officer passing final order-Passing of draft order is mandatory-Order quashed and remanded. [S. 92CA(4), 143(3), 254(1), Art. 226]