Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.A.C.T. Kathua (2022) 286 Taxman 98 (J & K and Ladakh)(HC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source-Interest other than interest on securities-Compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(MACT)-Compensation exceeded Rs.50 thousand-Tax deducted and deposited-MACT could not have directed Insurance Company to pay said amount yet again for its payment to claimants. [S. 194A(ix), Art. 226]

PCIT v. PraveenKumar Pathi (2022) 286 Taxman 458 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 153C : Assessment-Income of any other person-Search-Violation of principle of natural justice-Responded to notice-Order was set aside. [S. 132, 142(1), Art. 226]

Dinar Tarcar v. ACIT (2022) 286 Taxman 638 / 213 DTR 57 / 326 CTR 310 (Bom.)(HC)/Manisha Tarcar (Mrs ) v. ACIT (2022) 286 Taxman 638/ 213 DTR 57/ 326 CTR 310 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 150 : Assessment-Order on appeal-Reassessment-Deemed dividend-Addition deleted-Finding-Direction-Left open for the Assessing Officer in the hands of share holders-Order cannot be construed as direction. [S. 147, 148, 153, Art. 226]

Mamta Bhavesh Deva v. ITO (2022) 446 ITR 411 / 286 Taxman 692 (Guj.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Failure to show remuneration and interest on capital received from partnership firm-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 28(i), 148, Art. 226]

Gagan Omprakash Navani v. ITO (2022) 286 Taxman 668 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Capital gains-Profit on sale of property used for residence-Investment in six residential flats-Change of opinion-Reassessment is not valid. [S. 45, 54, 148, Art, 226]

Fast Finance (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (OSD) (2022) 446 ITR 378 /286 Taxman 455 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Speaking order-Order passed without passing a speaking order-Order was set aside-Directed to pass speaking order [S. 143(3), 148, Art. 226]

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 445 ITR 196 / 286 Taxman 365 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-Bad debt-Rural branch-Withdrawal of claim in subsequent year-Reassessment is not valid. [S. 36(1)(viia), 148, Art. 226]

Tata Sons Ltd. v. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 587 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Sale of shares-Business income-Capital gains-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 28(i), 148, 154, Art. 226]

Parle Products (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 286 Taxman 235/ (2023) 453 ITR 765 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Speculative transactions-loss of cancellation of forward contract-Change of opinion-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 43(5), 148, Art. 226]

Preethi Kitchen Appliances (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 446 ITR 411/ 286 Taxman 483 (Bom.)(HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment-With in four years-Depreciation-Information from Directorate of Income Tax, Intelligence & Criminal Investigation-Goodwill, trademarks and patents and Brands-Reopening of assessment on basis of very same material to take a different view was not justified-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 32, 148, Art, 226]