S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Limitation-Notice issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year barred by limitation-Proceedings and demand notice was quashed. [S. 147, Art. 226]
Rubina Senapati v. NAFC (2022) 449 ITR 333 (Orissa)(HC)S. 148 : Reassessment-Notice-Limitation-Notice issued beyond six years from the end of the assessment year barred by limitation-Proceedings and demand notice was quashed. [S. 147, Art. 226]
Rubina Senapati v. NAFC (2022) 449 ITR 333 (Orissa)(HC)S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice-Limitation-Initial notice issued after period of six years stating wrong assessment Year-Corrigendum issued thereafter cannot cure a procedural irregularity-Order rejecting objections set aside. [S. 147, 149, 292B, Art. 226]
Infineon Technologies Ag v. Dy.CIT(IT) (2022) 449 ITR 513 / 217 DTR 393/ 329 CTR 240 (Karn.)(HC)S. 148 : Reassessment –Notice-Reasons recorded after issue of notice-Order of High Court setting aside of reassessment proceedings is held to be proper. [S. 147, 292B, Art. 136]
PCIT v. Tata Sons Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 166/ 218 DTR 529/329 CTR 230/(2023) 291 Taxman 354 (SC) Editorial: CIT v. Tata Sons Ltd (2019) 267 Taman 13 (Bom)(HC), affirmed.S. 147 : Reassessment-Alternative remedy-Educational institution-Obligation to file return-Participated in the proceedings-Writ petition was dismissed. [S. 10(23C), 139(4A), 139(4C), 148, Art. 226]
Stewart Science College v. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 257 218 DTR 442 / 329 CTR 49/ 143 taxmann.com 80 / (2023) 290 Taxman 405 (Orissa)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-Order disposing of objections-Must be speaking order-Order set aside-Matter remanded to the Assessing Officer to consider afresh. [S. 148, Art. 226]
Roqutte Riddhi Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 618 (Guj.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-Assessment order-Stay of demand-Assessing Officer was directed to dispose of stay application in accordance with law. [S. 144, 148, 156, 226, Art. 226]
Ira Wasson (Smt.) v. Dy. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 320 (Delhi)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Limitation-Business application showing E-Mail served at 5. Am on April 1, after the expiry of time-Notice and reassessment order barred by limitation-Notice and assessment order was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]
Santosh Krishna (HUF) v. UOI (2022) 449 ITR 457 (All.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Employee benefit expenses-The successor officer had not come into possession of any other information to indicate escapement of income but merely relied upon the methodology adopted by the assessee to apprehend escapement of tax-Reassessment notice and order disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 148, Art. 226]
NLC India Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 449 ITR 367 (Mad.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Loan-Associated enterprise-International transaction-No failure to disclose material facts-Notice not valid and objection disposing the objection was quashed. [S. 92C, 148, Art. 226]
Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 449 ITR 631 (Karn.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-Two notices-Reassessment was initiated vide two notices-Limitation-Succeeding officer can continue proceedings from that stage-Issue of second notice does not signify dropping of proceedings on first notice-Reopening of assessment is valid. [S. 129, 148]
Dy. CIT v. Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2022)449 ITR 239 / 219 DTR 378 /329 CTR 457/145 taxmann.com 157/ (2023) 290 Taxman 377 (SC) Editorial: Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT(2018) 407 ITR 242 (Delhi)(HC) reversed.