S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-No failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly-Reassessment on change of opinion is held to be not valid. [S. 148]
IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 415 ITR 459 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-No failure to disclose all material facts fully and truly-Reassessment on change of opinion is held to be not valid. [S. 148]
IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 415 ITR 459 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment –With in four years- No new tangible material-Reassessment is bad in law. [S. 148]
Pawan Sood. v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 350 (All.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years-Change of opinion-Loss on account of sale of stores-No new material-Reassessment is not valid.[S. 144(1)(c), 148]
CIT v. Atul Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 1 (Guj) (HC)S. 147 : Reassessment–With in four years- General allegation-No violation of provisions of S. 11(3)(d)-Reassessment is bad in law. [S.10(23C), 11, 12AA, 13, 148 ]
Areez Khambatta Benevolent Trust v. DCIT (2019) 415 ITR 70 / (2020) 191 DTR 326(Guj.)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , DCIT v. Areez Khambatta Benevolent Trust [2024] 161 taxmann.com 528 / 462 ITR 3 (SC)S. 145A : Method of accounting–Interest-Compulsory acquisition of Land — Interest on enhanced compensation—Assessable in year of receipt under head Income from other sources. [S. 2(28A) 56(2)(viii), Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.28]
Puneet Singh. v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 215/ 182 DTR 194 / 310 CTR 817 (P&H) (HC)S. 145 : Method of accounting-Bank-Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India-Unreconciled outstanding amounts in inter branch accounts transferred to reserves through profit and loss account-Amount not assessable as Income [ S.28(i), Banking Regulation Act, 1949]
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. DCIT (2019) 415 ITR 193 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP is granted to the revenue CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur ( 2019) 413 ITR 319 (St) (SC)S. 143(3) : Assessment-Income from undisclosed sources-Cash deposits not explained–Addition is held to be justified. [S. 69]
Parveen Kumar v. CIT (2019) 415 ITR 241 (P&H) (HC)S. 143(3) : Assessment-Income from undisclosed sources- Purchase of property-Source of funds was not explained satisfactorily-Reduction of addition by Tribunal is held to be not justified.[S. 254(1)]
CIT v. N. Sheikh Ahmed Haji and Ors. (2019) 415 ITR 32 (Ker.) (HC)S. 143(3) : Assessment–Income from undisclosed sources–real estate business-Purchase of land–Alleged cash receipts-Price of the land was paid with other entries in the bank and there was nothing to show that a cash was received in excess of the agreement–Deletion of addition is held to be justified.[S. 69]
CIT v. Prestige City Developers P. Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 149 (Raj.)(HC) Editorial : SLP of the revenue is dismissed CIT v. Prestige City Developers P. Ltd. (2018) 406 ITR 36 (St)S. 115JB : Book profit-Capital gains-Adjusted book profits eligible for benefit under S.54EC. [S. 45 54EC, 115JA(4), 115JA(5)]
CIT v. Metal and Chromium Plater (P) Ltd. (2019) 415 ITR 123 (Mad.)(HC)