Income Tax : Delhi HC quashes reopening of tax assessment, ruling that technical delay in e-filing Form 10 before assessment completion is unju...
Income Tax : Explore the Bombay High Court's ruling on the invalidity of a reassessment notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, f...
Income Tax : Learn about Section 147 to 153 Income Escaping Assessment and Reopening of Cases Under Income Tax Act, 1961. Get guidance on the p...
Income Tax : Explore legality of Section 148A(b) & Section 148A(d) proceedings post Finance Act 2021. Understand implications of local assessm...
Income Tax : In a recent case, Madras High Court rules on reassessment proceedings against a struck-off company, highlighting the need for rev...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
Income Tax : Humble Representation for modification of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act relating to Sanction for issue of Notice under sec. 14...
Income Tax : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association requested CBDT to issue Clarification in respect of the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme...
Income Tax : In view of Indiscriminate notices by income Tax Department without allowing reasonable time it is requested to Finance Ministry an...
Income Tax : Lucknow CA Tax Practicioners Association has made a Representation to FM for Extension of Time Limit for Assessment cases time bar...
Income Tax : Delhi High Court held that reassessment action under section 148 of the Income Tax Act post approval of the resolution plan unsust...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Mumbai order in Laxman Gore Shreshtha Vs DCIT. Analysis of reassessment based on incorrect details ...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Income Tax : Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes reassessment notice for J.B.J. Perfumes Pvt. Ltd. based on 'Change of Opinion'. Learn about th...
Income Tax : Analysis of Swarn Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar) on validity of notice u/s 148 by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) vs Faceless...
Income Tax : Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ashish Agarwal, several representations were received asking for time-barring date of such cas...
Corporate Law : Income Tax Gazetted Officers’ Association (W.B.) Unit Date: 02.02.2023. To The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, W...
Income Tax : CBDT directed that cases reopened u/s 147/148A in consonance with Judgement of SC in case of UoI vs. Ashish Agarwal & CBDT instruc...
Income Tax : Consequent to order passed by Allahabad High Court passing severe strictures and proposing to levy exemplary cost of Rs 50 lakhs i...
Income Tax : Salient features of new Section 148 to 151A 'i.e. assessment/reassessment procedure of Income Escaping Assessment...
A notice in the case of a firm need not necessarily be issued to each and every one of its partners – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC).
Where the AAC set aside the reassessment on the only ground that the assessee was not afforded opportunity to put forward his case, but did not hold that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid, there would be no need for the ITO to issue a fresh notice to the assessee.
Notice gives jurisdiction to ITO – Issuance of notice within period of limitation gives jurisdiction to Assessing Officer to proceed to make reassessment.
It is difficult to sustain the notice issued u/s. 148. The audit objection is only an inference that the royalty payment resulted in a capital benefit; such an opinion expressed by the audit cannot constitute tangible material on the basis of which the assessment can be reopened.
Only aspect mentioned in the reasons recorded is about the requirement of inclusion or non-inclusion of cenvat/modvat credit in closing stock. The Assessing Officer stated in his reasons inter alia that on perusal of break up the loans and advances in the balance-sheet, it was found that the assessee had at the end of previous year a particular amount of cenvat credit not utilised and that the assessee had not credited the said amount to the profit & loss account.
The petitioner has been claiming that he is dealing in hedging besides in the wholesale business of gold and silver ornaments. To insure against price fluctuations, he has been hedging in such metals in MCX. The claim of the assessee, therefore, had to be examined in terms of clause (a) to sub-section (5) to section 43 of the Act. If for some reason such claim was not sustainable,
In the present case, the assessee disclosed the factum of housing project, the construction of shops and the profit derived therefrom. These were the primary facts sufficient for the Assessing Officer to proceed in its assessment process. He had undertaken such a process and applied the facts to the provisions of law by applying his mind.
Section 148 mandates issue of notice before assessment, reassessment or computation u/s 147. As per section 148, it is mandatory that the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice required him to furnish a return. The expression “Assessing Officer” used in the section 148 means ‘the Assessing Officer vested with the jurisdiction over the assessee as stipulated in the definition u/s 2(7A) by virtue of the directions / orders passed u/s 120, sub-section (1) & (2)’.
We notice that in the return filed by the petitioner, in addition to claiming deduction of gross income of interest and dividend of Rs.1,81,27,606 under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the petitioner further provided various details. For example, in the Annexure-VII to the return, such deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was bifurcated into dividend income of Rs. 53,71,450 and interest income of Rs. 1,27,56,156.
NOTICE TO AB Sr. The Supreme Court has issued a notice to Mr. Amitabh Bachchan regarding his case for A.Y. 02-03 on a petition from the revenue. On 13th October, 2002, Mr. Bachchan filed his return for the year stating his income to be Rs. 14.99 crore, later on 31st March, 2003, he filed a […]
