HC direct the respondents to maintain judicial discipline and follow the doctrine of binding precedent and be careful in future, having due regard to the authorities of the Court, keeping in mind the judicial propriety and discipline.
Daujee Abhushan Bhandar Pvt. Ltd Vs Union of India (Allahabad High Court) Considering the provisions of Section 282 and 282 A of the Act, 1961 and the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, 2000 and meaning of the word “issue” we find that firstly notice shall be signed by the assessing authority and then […]
HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court exposing serious flaw in reopening under section 148 in HDFC case (significance of tangible material for formulation of valid belief , fatal impact of difference in the reasons recorded on file and reasons placed for statutory approval under section 151 etc. “30. The position […]
Nandita Sikka Vs Income Tax Officer (Delhi High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned notice has been issued without approval of the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Act. He states that the approval has not only been obtained from an incompetent authority but has also been obtained after […]
Tata Capital Financial Services Limited Vs ACIT (Bombay High Court) Bombay High court (HC) lays guidelines on reopening cases for assessing officer (AO) for strict compliance Bombay high court coming down heavily on income tax department in section 148 reopening cases where revenue is held not transparent with tax payers in sharing of requested information […]
Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited Vs DCIT (Bombay High Court) Lastly, it would be contextually relevant to note that the rejection of the objections to the reopening also suffers from a familiar error, which the notices for reopening usually manifest. The Assessing Officer in the impugned order recorded that though the details of the expenses were […]
Rajdeep Marketing Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer (Bombay High Court) HC observed that, If on identical reasons raised for Assessment Year 2012-13 petitioner’s explanation has been accepted and no addition made, certainly on the same ground, we wonder how an allegation of escapement of income can be made for the subsequent Assessment Years. In […]
Small Industries Development Bank of India Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Bombay High Court) Bombay high court in income tax matter in case of SIDBI vs CBDT … Explaining at length operative impact of non obstante clause A non-obstante clause is generally appended to a Section with a view to give the enacting part […]
Bombay HC’s stern remarks on casual approach by Revenue in Amrutlal V. Rukhana Vs. Rao Ranvijay Singh, CIT. Lack of assistance results in loss of public money.
Bpip Infra Private Limited Vs ITO (Rajasthan High Court) In these cases petitioners are aggrieved of issuance of the re-assessment notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which according to the petitioners are barred by limitation and that the Department before issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act has not followed the […]
