Category: Income-Tax Act

Archive for the ‘Income-Tax Act’ Category


Sainath Rajkumar Sarode v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 283 Taxman 494 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 194A : Deduction at source – Interest other than interest on securities – Builder –Judgement debt – Compensatory interest failure to hand over possession of flat – TDS was not liable to be deducted. [ S. 2(28A) , Real Estate ( Regulation & Development ) Act 2016 (RERA ) Art , 226 ]

Alok Knit Exports Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2021) 283 Taxman 221 /(2022) 446 ITR 748/ 213 DTR 74(Bom.) (HC)

S. 148 : Reassessment –Merger – Notice issued in the name of entity which had ceased to exist – Fundamental error – Which cannot be corrected under section 292B of the Act [ S. 147 , 292B , Art , 226 ]

John Sebastian Zezito Lobo v. ACIT (2021)439 ITR 537 / 283 Taxman 229 ( Panji Bench ) (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Jurisdictional issue – Capital gains –Large deduction of expenses – Exemption claimed – Prima facie showing escapement of income – Notice of reassessment is held to be valid – Writ is held to be not maintainable [ S. 45, 54F , 143(1), 148 , Art , 226 ]

PCIT v . EPC Industries Ltd. (2021)439 ITR 210 (Bom) (HC)

S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- Waiver of loan – Change of opinion- Query raised during regular assessment proceedings – Order of Tribunal affirmed – No question of law [ S. 28(iv), 41 (1)) 148]

Nirupa Udhav Pawar (Smt) . v. ACIT (2021)439 ITR 541 ( Panji Bench ) (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Capital gains – Sale of property – No failure to disclose material facts – Validity of notice to be examined on the basis of reasons recorded wile issuing the notice – The notice cannot be justified by filing affidavit or by oral submissions – Notice was held to be not valid [ S. 45, 148 , Art , 226 ]

Kalpataru Limited v .Dy. CIT (2021)439 ITR 284 /(2022) 213 DTR 25/ 326 CTR 284 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Duty of assessee only to disclose facts and not to draw inferences – Notice has to state which facts not disclosed – Change of opinion -Notice was quashed [ S. 80IB(10) , 148 , Art , 226 ]

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v .Dy. CIT (2021)439 ITR 333/(2022) 284 Taxman 252 / 212 DTR 323/ 326 CTR 325 (Bom) (HC)

S.147: Reassessment – After the expiry of four years – Loss disclosed and allowed in original assessment – No failure to disclose material facts – Notice to withdrawal of loss allowed – Held to be not valid [ S. 143(3), 148 , Art , 226 ]

Zeus Housing Company .v . UOI (2021) 283 Taxman 377 (Bom) (HC))

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Principle of natural justice – Show cause notice along with draft assessment order raising demand under section 156 of the Act – Reply to show cause was filed – Adjournment application was filed – Order passed without considering the reply – Assessment order was quashed – Officers are directed to be truthsful while filing the affidavit – Directed to place this order before Commissioner (Judicial ) and also circulate to all Commissioner ( Judicial ) . [ S. 143(3) ,156 , Art , 226 ]

Uday Desai HUF v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 570 (Bom.) (HC)

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Principle of natural justice – Order passed without providing due opportunity – Notice cum draft assessment order – Provided only one day time – Order was set aside [ Art , 226 ]

Chander Arjandas Manwani v. NFAC (2021) 283 Taxman 380 /(2022) 442 ITR 197 (Bom.) (HC )Edittorial:NFAC v . Chander Arjandas Manwani (2023)453 ITR 236 (SC), order of High Court set aside h

S. 144B : Faceless Assessment – Violation of principle of natural justice- Request for personal hearing had been was not granted – Draft assessment order was not issued – Order passed is held to be non-est and set aside . [ S. 143(3) , Art , 226 ]