section 148

For exercise of power U/s. 263, it is mandatory that order passed by AO should be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue

CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Full Article

Delay in notice U/s. 143(2) Renders Assessment Void – HC

Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd vs. DGIT (Delhi HC) - Draft order is not the final assessment order and does not result in completion of assessment. Under sub-section (2) to Section 143, the assessee has a right to accept, within 30 days, the draft assessment order or has right to file objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. Under Section 144C(3), the Assessing Officer shall complete assessment proceedings on the basis of the draft order ..
Full Article

Retrospective amendment no basis to reopen beyond 4 years – HC Disapproves AO’s Practice to Delay Passing Objection Orders

Doshion Ltd. Vs. ITo (Ahmedabad HC) - Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it clearly emerges that the assessment previously framed after scrutiny is sought to be reopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has not suggested that such income escaped assessment for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully al..
Full Article

Sanction of CIT instead of JCIT renders reopening u/s. 147 of Income Tax Act invalid

CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd (Delhi High Court) - The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner for reopening U/s. 147. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assessee has been ac..
Full Article

AO cannot assess other ‘escaped income’ if reason for issue of Notice under section 148 dropped

ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (Chattisgarh High Court) - The Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (supra) observed that after issuing a notice under Section 148, the income which has initially formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but as a matter of fact has not escaped assessment. The AO cannot proceed to assess some other income independently, however, it was observed that it is open for the AO to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 and procee..
Full Article

Notice U/s. 148 is invalid In absence of any live link with the reasons recorded and the belief formed

The Assessing Officer supplied reasons he had recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as under:- “The assessee company filed its return of income on 22.12.2006, declaring total income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) was finalized on 18.06.2008 determining the taxable income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. It is seen that the assessee company had made payment of Rs.21,60,399/- in Foreign Company for purchase of raw materials. However, neither did the compa..
Full Article

Reopening without proper application of Mind by the Assessing officer is invalid

If the assessee is not able to give satisfactory explanation as to the “nature and source” of a sum found credited in his books, the sum may be treated as the “undisclosed income” of the assessee. The initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit and to do so, the assessee is required to prove (a) Identity of the shareholder; (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) credit worthiness of shareholders; If the assessee has pr..
Full Article

Reopening U/s. 148 without service of reasons to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years renders reopening invalid

As the issuance of the s. 148 notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand in hand, the reasons have to be supplied to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years. If this is not done, the validity of the s. 148 notice cannot be upheld. In any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, a summons issued without a copy of the plaint or complaint has to be construed as if no valid service of notice has been effected upon the defendant or respondents.
Full Article
Page 1 of 3123
Copyright © TaxGuru 2011. All Rights Reserved.
About Us - Advertise - Privacy Policy - Back to top