B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court) -
B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 4...
Read More
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT Mumbai) -
Century Textiles & Industries Ltd Vs DCIT, Mumbai -In the instant case, the original order was passed on 22.3.2004 u/s 143(3) of the I T Act and since the reassessment notice was issued for the purpose of adding the arrears of depreciation debited to P&L account and the revaluation reserves credited to P&L account to be reduced while comp...
Read More
Hidelbergcement India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) -
Hidelbergcement India Ltd Vs ACIT (ITAT Mumbai) – Once the Assessing Officer considered and examined the issue of foreign exchange fluctuation as manifest from the original assessment order, the assessment completed u/s 143(3) cannot be reopened on the same issue by taking a different view. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cas...
Read More
CIT Vs The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited (Delhi High Court) -
CIT Versus The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited (Delhi HC) Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 read with 148 of the Act cannot be initiated merely based on the audit report . An audit is principally intended for the purpose of satisfying the auditor with regard to sufficiency of rules and procedures prescribed for the purpose of secur...
Read More
UKT Software Technologies Vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi) -
It is mandatory for the AO to issue notice u/s 143 (2). The issuance and service of notice u/s 143 (2) is mandatory and not procedural. If the notice is not served within the prescribed period, the assessment order is invalid...
Read More
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd Vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) -
The proviso to Section 14A only bars reassessment/rectification and not original assessment on the basis of the retrospective amendment. The proviso does not stipulate and state that Section 14A of the Act cannot be relied upon during the course of the original assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer was, therefore, required to disa...
Read More
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) -
No action can be taken under the section 147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year...
Read More
The Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer (Delhi High Court) -
If the assessee is not able to give satisfactory explanation as to the “nature and source” of a sum found credited in his books, the sum may be treated as the “undisclosed income” of the assessee. The initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit and to do so, the assessee is required to pr...
Read More
Sri Sakthi Textiles Ltd. Vs. JCIT (Madras High Court) -
In order to fall within the proviso to section 147, apart from stating that there are reasons for the authority to believe that there has been escapement of chargeable income, it should also record that such escapement is due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material particulars necessary for his assessment f...
Read More
Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT (OSD) (Gujarat High Court) -
Reopening of tax assessment beyond four years on the basis of a retrospective amendment is not justified, if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary during the original assessment proceedings...
Read More