Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Dr. Bharani R. Paluvai v. ITO (2021) 283 Taxman 159 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 149 : Reassessment-Time limit for notice-Issue of notice-Notice dated 31-3 2018-Despatched on same day-1-4-2018 being Sunday Franking was done by postal authorities on 2-4 2018-Notice is not time barred. [S. 147, 148, Art. 226]

Navkar Electronics v. ITO (2021) 323 CTR 1037 / 208 DTR 315 (Mad.)(HC) Editorial : Finding of single judge is set aside, Navkar Electronics v. ITO (2021) 323 CTR 1041 / 208 DTR 320 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Search and seizure-Information from third party-Satisfaction-Validity of issue was notice u/s. 148 was left open to be decided in appeal-Order of single judge was set aside. [S. 132, 148, 153C, 158BD, Art. 226]

K. Rajesh v. ACIT (2021) 283 Taxman 153 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Value of any benefit or perquisites-On the basis of observation by the CIT (A)-Repayment of loan-Disputed facts cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings-Reassessment notice is held to be valid. [S. 28(iv), 148, 151, Art. 226]

Financial Software & Systems (P) Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 165 /(2022) 218 DTR 497/ 329 CTR 44/ 447 ITR 352 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147: Reassessment-Within four years-Issue of share expenses-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 148, Art. 226]

Chennai Network Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT (2021) 283 Taxman 126 / (2022) 441 ITR 535 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credit-Purchases-Non genuine payment-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 68, 148, Art. 226]

BASF Catalysts India (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 591 (Mad.) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Failure to deduct tax at source-Reassessment notice was held to be justified [S. 40(a)(i), Art. 226]

Sutherland Global Services (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 208 DTR 265 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Audit objection-Survey-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 133A, 148, Art. 226]

CIT v. Bharatiya Reserve Bank Note Mudran (P) Ltd. (2021) 207 DTR 283/(2022) 324 CTR 311 (Karn.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Change of opinion-Interest income-oversight, inadvertence or mistake committed by the ITO-No fresh material-Reassessment is held to be not valid. [S. 57, 148]

Saravana Stocks Investments (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 323 CTR 666 / 207 DTR 185 ( 2022) / 449 ITR 594(Mad.)(HC)Editorial: Decision of single judge , set aside , Saravana Stocks Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2022)449 ITR 589 (Mad)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-No failure to disclose material facts- Capital gains -Business income -Change of opinion-The Assessing Officer has to deal with objections if not satisfied should specifically state as to how the objections are unjustified-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 45, 148, Art. 226]

Super Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 55 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Income from forex Transaction, Insurance claim, miscellaneous income-Not eligible deduction-Reassessment notice was held to be valid. [S. 80HHC, 148, Art. 226]