S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- On the day of furnishing the recorded reasons–Reassessment order is passed -Order passed in hasty manner–Order is seta side. [S. 148]
Kanchan Agarwal (Mrs.) v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 682 (Karn.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- On the day of furnishing the recorded reasons–Reassessment order is passed -Order passed in hasty manner–Order is seta side. [S. 148]
Kanchan Agarwal (Mrs.) v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 682 (Karn.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-Cash credits-Share application money-Huge premium-Genuineness of transaction or creditworthiness of individual providing money were apparently not established–Issue of reassessment notice is held to be justified.[S. 68, 148]
Max Ventures Investments Holdings (P.) Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 415 ITR 395 / 263 Taxman 401/ ( 2019) 179 CTR 228/ 309 CTR 372 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–After the expiry of four years-Book profit-Subsidy received by assessee from Government was directly credited to capital reserve account-Sufficient disclosure of facts– Reassessment is held to be bad in law.[S. 115JB, 148]
Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. v. Dy.CIT (2019) 105 taxmann.com 181 / 263 Taxman 367 (Guj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of revenue is dismissed, Dy. CIT v. Pandesara Infrastructure Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 366 (SC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Penny stock – Shares-No failure to disclose all material facts- Merely on basis of information received from Investigation Wing without conducting any independent enquiries. [S. 69A, 148]
South Yarra Holdings v. ITO (2019) 263 Taxman 594 (Bom.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years- Prior period expenses – Disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment-Initiation of reassessment proceedings merely on basis of change of opinion is not justified.[S. 37(1), 148]
CMI FPE Ltd. v. UOI (2019) 263 Taxman 433 (Bom.)(HC)S. 143(3) : Assessment–Alternative remedy-Writ against the assessment order is not valid since the assessee had an alternative remedy before Appellate Authority. [S. 246A, Art. 226]
Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT (2019) 105 taxmann.com 272 / 263 Taxman 469(Orissa )(HC) Editorial : SLP of the assessee is dismissed and passed the order stating that no coercive steps will be taken for a period of four weeks from the date of the order in order to avail of the alternative remedy provided. Mahesh Kumar Agarwal v. Pr. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 468 (SC)S. 132 : Search and seizure-Validity–Initiation of search proceedings was not based upon any information or other material- Authorisation is held to be invalid and quashed. [Art. 226]
Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia v. PDIT(I) (2019) 416 ITR 365 /263 Taxman 604/309 CTR 330/ 180 DTR 49 (Guj.)(HC).Editorial : PDIT (Inv) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (2022)446 ITR 18 (SC), order of High Court set aside . /Editorial: SLP granted to Revenue , PDIT (Inv) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (2022) 287 Taxman 564 / 114 CCH 170 (SC)S. 115B : Life Insurance business–Surplus available in shareholder’s account was not to be taxed separately as income from other sources and same was to be taxed at normal corporate rate as specified under section 115JB of the Act. [S. 56]
PCIT v. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 389/ 105 taxmann.com 471 / 263 Taxman 471 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial: SLP is granted to the revenue, PCIT v. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 47// 411 ITR 39 (St) (SC)S. 80IC : Special category states–Substantial expansion- Entitle to exemption.
PCIT v. Security Products (P.) Ltd. (2019) 105 taxmann.com 177/ 263 Taxman 373 (HP)(HC) Editorial: SLP of revenue is dismissed, PCIT v. Security Products (P.) Ltd. (2019) 263 Taxman 372 (SC)S. 80IC : Special category states–Book profit– Legislative powers-Constitutional validity –Discrimination between individual and company-There was a reasonable classification by way of special provision for companies–Provision is held to be valid.[S. 115JB, Art, 14, 226]
Bishnu Krishna Shrestha. v. CIT (2019) 414 ITR 405 /263 Taxman 478/ 180 DTR 158/ 309 CTR 478 (Raj)(HC) S.B.L. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 414 ITR 405 / 263 Taxman 478 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the assessee, S.B.L. (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (2019) 263 Taxman 477/411 ITR 39 (St) (SC)