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...
In the present case, we notice that in two out of four reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening the assessment, he stated that he need to verify the claims. In the second ground, he had recorded that admissibility of the bad debts written off required to be verified. In the fourth ground also, he had recorded that admissibility of royalty claim was required to be verified.
Whether reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 to successor of business on account of omission and failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for determining the income chargeable to tax for these assessment years is valid?
On the issue of retrospective amendment, Union Finance Minister, Shri Pranab Mukherjee has said that he had given a commitment in the Parliament with regard to retrospective amendments that CBDT will issue a policy circular to clarify that in cases where assessment proceedings have become final before first day of April, 2012; such cases shall not be reopened. Now CBDT has issued a circular in this regard, the Finance Minister has stated.
The assessee had filed and furnished all details and particulars relating to the royalty payment including agreements, calculation and the approval before the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings. There was no failure on the part of the assessee to furnish true and correct all material facts. The facts were available before and were within the knowledge of the AO. The new AO as per the reasons recorded on the basis of the same facts, has observed that royalty payment should have been disallowed as it was capital in nature. This is a question of legal inference or interpretation which has been drawn from the same material facts on record. Therefore, the case falls in the category of change of opinion as at the time of original preceding the AO examined and gone into the question of royalty. Even if there was any legal error or illegality the same cannot be rectified and be made the subject matter of reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act. The re-assessment order is also quashed.
When the statements made by the assessees here, later retracted, do not have any evidentiary value, there is no basis in holding that there are materials available before the Assessing Officer to make out cases of escapement of income. A reason must be formed by the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment on the basis of material or information recognized under law.
On the date of issue of notice under section 148 on 31-3-2008 by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment, the earlier view taken by the Assessing Officer in the assessment framed under section 143(3) on 31-3-2006 was supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (supra), and the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 170.
There is no requirement in Section 147 or Section 148 or Section 149 that the reasons recorded should also accompany the notice issued under Section 148. The requirement in Section 149(1) is only that the notice under Section 148 shall be issued. There is no requirement that it should also be served on the assessee before the period of limitation
The retrospective clarificatory amendments now under consideration of Parliament will not be used to reopen any cases where assessment orders have already been finalized. I have asked the Central Board of Direct taxes to issue a policy circular to clearly state this position after the passage of the Finance Bill.
Section 147 – Sanction Of Superior Officer Renders Reopening Void: Bombay High Court. The notice under section 148 can be issued beyond four year with prior approval of joint commissioner and at the same time joint-commissioner should be satisfied that this is fit case for issue of a notice in view of section 151(2). In the present case no new evidence or fresh evidence produce by assessing officer and the joint-commissioner granted approval without see the record for issuance of notice under section 148. The court held that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law.
During the course of assessment proceedings, in the case of an assessee having income or assets outside India, information is being sought from the tax authorities situated outside India, while completing an assessment. Under the provisions of section 90 or section 90A of the Income-tax Act, information can be exchanged with the foreign tax authorities for prevention of evasion or avoidance of income tax chargeable under this Act or under the corresponding law in force in that country or specified territory, as the case may be.
