Explore the Calcutta High Court’s decision in PCIT v. Soorajmul Nagarmull, emphasizing the allowance of time-barred appeals involving substantial questions of law. Gain insights into the case and its implications.
No Sec. 68 additions solely based on MOU found during search In Premises Of Third Party if assessee wasn’t even remotely connected to MOU
Explore the case law of ITO vs. Shri R.K. Gupta (ITAT Delhi) regarding filing returns in response to notice under section 148. Understand the importance of proper compliance with the notice for reassessment.
Sri Laxmi Narayan Agency Vs ITO (Orissa High Court) On writ the assessee contended that the documents on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had formed the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment were not supplied to the assessee, and that the request for opportunity of cross-examination of the persons on the […]
CIT Vs Laxman Dass Khandelwal (Supreme Court of India) After filing a return of income u/s 139(1), 139(4), 139(5), 142(1) if income tax authority considers, it is necessary or expedient to ensure that assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under-paid the taxes in any manner, shall […]
Salil Gulati Vs ACIT (Supreme Court of India) Hon’ble Supreme Court today in SLP No. 7466/2023 in Salil Gulati v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has dismissed the SLP. The SLP had challenged the fresh reassessment notices for AY 2014-15 under 148A(b) issued after the Hon’ble SC judgment in Ashish Aggarwal case, on the ground […]
Sumit Jagdishchandra Agrawal Vs DCIT (Gujarat high court) All original notices under section 148 referable to old regime and issued between 01.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 would stand beyond prescribed permissible timeline of six years from end of assessment year 2013-14 and assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, all such notices when they would relate to assessment year 2013-14 […]
It is seen in a number of cases that notices u/s 148A(b) are being issued on the basis of report of Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, the Income Tax Officers hardly make any independent enquiry and thus relies on the report of Investigation Wing. This is called ‘borrowed satisfaction’ and an assessment order culminated on the basis of borrowed satisfaction can’t survive the test of appeal and shall be set aside at some stage in appeal.
Assessee cannot be called upon to pay the tax which has been deducted at source from his income, even though not deposited by his employer – Quashes demand on employee arising from TDS not deposited by Kingfisher Airlines.
Supreme Court held that date of Panchnama last drawn would be relevant date for considering period of limitation of two years and not last date of authorisation
