Reassessment - Page 5

Reassessment based on usurpation of jurisdiction on non-existing jurisdiction is invalid

Dipti Mehta Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)

When income which was the foundation on which he based his belief of escapement of income was absent /disappeared then AO’s very usurpation of jurisdiction was on non-existing jurisdictional fact which rendered his usurpation of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment legally untenable and so null in the eyes of law and therefore, the rea...

Read More

Section 148 Notice for reassessment invalid If not served properly

Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)

Since the delivery of the notice of reassessment could not be made at the address of assessee available in PAN database, by virtue of the further proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 127, the communication had to be delivered at the address as available with the banking company however, no such steps were taken, therefore, service of notice wa...

Read More

Section 147 | Reason to Believe | 20 Case Laws

Section 147 of the Income tax Act , 1961 and explanation of the text ‘Reason to Believe’ Reason to believe does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO The expression ‘reason to believe’ in section 147 does not mean purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Assessing Officer. The [&...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Reassessment based on Vague reasons without application of mind is invalid

Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs. ITO (ITAT Agra)

Smt. Sapna Chauhan Vs ITO (ITAT Agra) It is settled position in law that the question of Jurisdiction is not a matter of acquiescence. The proprietary of Notice under section 148, based upon ‘reasons recorded’ is not dependent upon the objection or no objection by the assessee at the stage of assessment. If the Reasons […]...

Read More

Section 148: Practical aspects on Reopening of Cases

Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is a powerful weapon used by Income-tax department to reopen the case of past years. The basis for reopening of case u/s 147 is that Assessing Officer has reasons to believe that income of assessee has escaped assessment....

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Section 147: Manner of recording satisfaction not prescribed

Shri Sushil Kumar Golecha Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore)

Shri Sushil Kumar Golecha Vs ACIT (ITAT Indore) The law is well settled where the issue of jurisdiction of assessing authority is concerned, if the jurisdiction assumed is not in accordance with law, then it cannot be cured or ignored under the provisions of section 292B of the Act. In our considered view, the assumption […]...

Read More

Reopening U/s. 148 without approval of designated authority is void ab initio

DCIT Vs Bhaijee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)

DCIT Vs Bhaijee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) In this From the records, it can be clearly seen that the notice has been issued prior to the approval. Thus, reopening u/s 148 is without the approval of the designated authority and as such reassessment itself is bad and without any jurisdiction. The mandatory conditions of […]...

Read More

Revisionary power U/s. 263 cannot be exercised on ground not covered in Re-Opening

Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Vs CIT (Central) (ITAT Pune)

Gulab Badgujar (HUF) Vs CIT (Central) (ITAT Pune) The question which arises is the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Act against the order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, wherein the assessment proceedings were re-opened on specific reasons recorded for re-op...

Read More

Reopening in absence of fresh tangible material to form an opinion is invalid

Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi High Court)

Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (Delhi High Court) In the present case all the material that was necessary for the AO to form an opinion regarding the transaction involving the Assessee and PACL was already available with the AO. There was no fresh tangible material on the basis of which the AO could […]...

Read More
Posted Under: Income Tax |

Reopening notice based on satisfaction of some other authority is invalid

South Yarra Holdings Vs ITO (Bombay High Court)

South Yarra Holdings Vs ITO (Bombay High Court) It is a settled position in law that re-opening of an assessment has to be done by an Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction. It is not open to an Assessing Officer issue a reopening notice at the dictate and/or satisfaction of some other authority. Therefore, on […]...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,438)
Company Law (5,279)
Custom Duty (7,558)
DGFT (4,090)
Excise Duty (4,317)
Fema / RBI (3,944)
Finance (4,105)
Income Tax (31,600)
SEBI (3,295)
Service Tax (3,506)

Search Posts by Date

January 2020
« Dec