Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. PCIT (2022) 440 ITR 568 (Chhattisgarh) (HC)

S. 254(2): Appellate Tribunal-Rectification of mistake apparent from the record – Delay of 1924 days ( Eight years) -Condonation of delay was dismissed . [. 260A ]

Sree Karumariamman Granites v. ACIT (2022) 440 ITR 537/ 209 DTR 283/ 324 CTR 418 (Mad) (HC)

S. 246A : Appeal – Commissioner (Appeals) – Writ against assessment order – Alternative remedy – Writ petition was dismissed .[S. 143(3), 248, Art, 226 ]

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI (2022) 440 ITR 26/210 DTR 145/ 324 CTR 616 (Ker) (HC)

S.234E: Fee – Default in furnishing the statements – Provision for levy of late fee for delay in filing — Valid — Intimation calling for payment of late fee for delaying filing of return — Not sustainable for periods prior to June 1, 2015 [S. 200A, Art , 226 ]

Premlata Soni ( Smt.) v . NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 578 (MP) (HC)

S. 151 : Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Sanction for issue of notice – Recording of separate reasons not necessary – Reassessment notice is held to be valid . [ S. 147, 148 , Art , 226 ]

JRS Pharma and Gujarat Microwax Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2022) 440 ITR 557 (Guj) ( HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Where the necessary details were disclosed, reopening is not valid. [ S. 148, Art , 226 ]

Bankim Bhagwanji Chaauhan v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 485 (Guj) ( HC) Bankim Bhagwanji Chaauhan v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 485 (Guj) ( HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Where the necessary details were disclosed, reopening is not valid. [ S. 54, 148, Art , 226 ]

Rich Feel Health and Beauty Private Limited v. ITO (2022) 440 ITR 41/ 284 Taxman 286 (Bom) ( HC)/Editorial: SLP of Revenue dismissed , ITO v. Rich Feel Health & Beauty (P.) Ltd (2023) 291 Taxman 203 (SC)

S.147: Reassessment – Two assessment years reopened – One with in four years – One after the expiry of four years – Condition Precedent — Primary facts necessary for assessment fully and truly disclosed — AO had applied his mind – Not open for the AO to reopen assessment based on very same material and to take a different view – Notices for reopening on change of opinion – Invalid [S. 148, Art , 226 ]

Coca-Cola India P. Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 440 ITR 20 (Bom) ( HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Condition Precedent — Notice not specifying failure to disclose any material facts truly and fully by assessee — Notice and subsequent order invalid. [S. 148, Art , 226 ]

Inder Prasad Mathura Lal v. NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 73 (Raj) ( HC) Inder Prasad Mathura Lal v. NEAC (2022) 440 ITR 73 (Raj) ( HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Contention of denial of opportunity of personal hearing requested by Assessee — Assessment order stayed.[ Art , 226 ]

Sribasta Kumar Swain v .UOI (2022) 440 ITR 545 (Orissa) (HC) Sribasta Kumar Swain v .UOI (2022) 440 ITR 545 (Orissa) (HC)

144B: Faceless Assessment –Mandatory condition – Assessment order passed without passing the draft assessment order – Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order , after complying with requirement of section 144B .[ S. 143 (3), Art , 226 ]