S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Capital gains-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was quashed [S. 45, 54, 148, Art. 226]
Gagan Omprakash Navani v. ITO (2022) 445 ITR 147 (Bom.)(HC)
Digest of case laws
Online digest of latest case laws
This Digest of case laws is prepared by KSA Legal and AIFTP from judgements reported in BCAJ, CTR, DTR, ITD, ITR, ITR (Trib), Chamber's Journal, SOT, Taxman, TTJ, BCAJ, ACAJ, www.itatonline.org and other journals
Click here to download the pdf versions of the Digest of case laws S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Business expenditure-Leased assets-Repurchase expenses-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice is not valid. [S. 37(1), 148, Art, 226]
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 286 Taxman 607 (Bom.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Rate of depreciation-Software licence-Audit information-Reassessment notice was quashed. [S. 32, 148, Art, 226]
Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. v. DCIT (2022) 286 Taxman 333 (Bom.)(HC)/Editorial : SLP of Revenue is dismissed , Dy.CIT v. Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd (2023) 294 Taxman 597 ( SC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Provision for sales and operating expenses-No failure to disclose material facts-Reassessment notice was not valid. [S. 148, Art, 226]
Halite Personal Care India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (2022)448 ITR 303/ 218 DTR 531/ 286 Taxman 464 (Bom.)(HC)S. 147 : Reassessment-After the expiry of four years-Audit objection-Security deposit-Interest expenditure-Change of opinion-Reassessment was quashed. [S. 37(1), 148, Art, 226]
Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. ACIT (2022] 286 Taxman 324 (Bom.)(HC)S. 145 : Method of accounting-Records were destroyed by fire-Rejection of books of account not justified. [S. 133A]
PCIT v. Inland Road Transport Ltd. (2022) 286 Taxman 613 (Cal.)(HC)S. 144C : Reference to dispute resolution panel-Draft assessment order-Limitation-No objection raised by assessee-Assessment order passed on 27-9-2021-Barred by limitation. [Art. 226]
Renaissance Services Bv v. Dy. CIT (IT) (2022) 445 ITR 27 / 213 DTR 313/326 CTR 637/ 288 Taxman 244(Bom.)(HC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Advance received from clients-For failure to file proper reply the assessment was made by making huge addition-On writ the order was quashed subject to assessee depositing a sum of Rs 5 crores-Directed the assessee to file reply in reassessment proceedings.[S. 69A, 143, Art, 226]
Hermes I Tickes (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 286 Taxman 18 / 210 DTR 142/ 324 CTR 645 (Mad.)(HC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Natural justice-Opportunity of hearing-High Court set aside assessment for de novo consideration, with a direction to concerned authority to pass assessment order and strictly comply with mandatory provisions prescribed under section 144B, considering all submissions made by assessee and also granting a personal hearing [S. 143(3),144B(7), Art, 226]
Praful M. Shah v. NAFC (2022) 136 Taxmann.com 295 (Bom.)(HC) Editorial : Notice issued in SLP filed by assessee, Praful M. Shah v. NAFC (2022) 286 Taxman 263 (SC)S. 144B : Faceless Assessment-Best judgment assessment-Natural justice-Directed to afford due opportunity of hearing before passing final assessment order-Reassessment-Notices were seta side-Directed to consider objections and pass the order giving an opportunity of hearing. [S. 144 147, 148, 156, 270A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Art, 226]
Vadraj Energy (Gujarat) Ltd. v. ACIT (2022) 445 ITR 15 (Bom.)(HC)