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 : Understand the critical role of the initial enquiry under Section 148A(a) for taxpayer protection in income tax assessments. Explo...
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 : Under the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961, notices for assessment/reassessment of income of old cases of more than six years fr...
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 : Learn why a reassessment notice issued under Section 148 beyond the four-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year ...
Income Tax : Reassessment proceedings initiated by officers without jurisdiction and completed by different officers without recording fresh re...
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...
Jamna Auto Industries vs. CIT – The assessee before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was a Partnership firm. The assessee firm had entered into an agreement with M/s. Deutsche Strahil Metail of Berlin a German firm for supply of certain goods of a particular value. The agreement so arrived at, however, could not be acted upon by the assessee as it did not have the requisite import licence for material intended to be imported. On a dispute being referred to the arbitrator, the assessee had to pay damages to the German firm in terms of the award dated 29th July, 1974 for failure to perform its part of the contract.
It was incumbent on the Assessing Officer to show in the reasons recorded by him that any income escaped assessment due to error or omission on the part of the assessee in not disclosing all material facts relevant for assessment of this year. The assessment order does not show any error or omission on the part of the assessee in disclosing all material facts. So the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was right in cancelling the re-assessment.
The author has made a critical analysis of the recent decision of the Kolkota Bench of the ITAT in Van Oord Atlanta B.V. 112 TTJ 229 and identified the important principles of law emerging therefrom. 1. 1. Factual Synopsis of the case 1.1 Van Oord Atlanta B.V. (‘Assessee’) a company incorporated in Netherlands and a resident of that country was accordingly treated as eligible to benefits of ‘DTAA’.
In a large engineering company operating in Western India having global operation, a new Chief Audit Executive (CAE) was appointed. The CAE had joined this organisation based on the public positioning of the group but felt disappointed within a few months of joining. The organisation had grown organically and was largely family-owned with the senior management being hands on with the operations of the company. The Internal Audit culture had not yet matured and was largely focussed on ‘compliance’. The budget was not sufficient as the management had very low level of expectations from the internal audit function which was mainly compliance-driven.
Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji—hereinafter called the respondent—was a trader in Malabar produce, cloth, pepper and other commodities. For the assessment year 1945-46, the respondent submitted a return disclosing a net business loss of Rs. 7,960. The Income-tax Officer, Kozhikode, District Malabar, completed the assessment on March 29, 1946,
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was a material irregularity in the notice issued to the assessee under section 34 and dated 28th February, 1958, and if so, whether such irregularity vitiated the proceedings taken under the said notice ?”
Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO (Supreme Court) The notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid, then the proceedings taken by the ITO would be illegal and void – Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO [1959] 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC).
An assessment under section 23(3) of the Act cannot be made only on bare suspcion. An assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assesses wanted to produce in support of his case constitutes a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and calls for the powers under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
