Income Tax : Explore the legality of issuing a second notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the same assessment year. Unders...
Income Tax : Explore the latest changes in Income Tax laws, including extinguishment of demands, return processing, form amendments, exemptions...
Income Tax : Delve into the provisions of Income Tax Act Sections 153A & 153C, governing assessments after search or requisition. Learn from co...
Income Tax : Explore recent Supreme Court rulings (2023) on income tax issues. Highlights of key cases, analysis, and implications....
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 : 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 : One of the key sources of dispute is the existing arrangement for follow up on audit objections by Internal Audit Party and the Re...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : PCIT Vs Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court): Reassessment cannot be solely based on a reevaluation of exi...
Income Tax : Assessee was engaged in diamond manufacturing, trading, and windmill power generation, had claimed deductions under sections 35DD ...
Income Tax : ITAT Raipur order on Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs ITO. ITAT sets aside Income Tax reassessment completed without providing fair & reason...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of Karrm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT at ITAT Mumbai. Learn why ITAT ruled that non-filing of GST b...
Income Tax : Learn how to initiate proceedings under section 147 of the IT Act in e-Verification cases. Detailed instructions for Assessing Off...
Income Tax : Explore e-Verification Instruction No. 2 of 2024 from the Directorate of Income Tax (Systems). Detailed guidelines for AOs under I...
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...
In the present case the reasons disclose that the Assessing Officer reached the belief that there was escapement of income on going through the return of income filed by the assessee after he accepted the return under Section 143(1) without scrutiny, and nothing more.
ASSOCHAM wants correction as FM begins pre-budget consultations Showing a grave concern over the fact that notices for reopening of assessments by the tax authorities are being issued in thousands in recent times, ASSOCHAM today said returns should not be re-opened beyond three years. As Finance Minister P Chidambaram has started his pre-budget consultations with […]
From a perusal of the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, we find that he had simply recorded the finding in the assessment order passed for the assessment year 1996-97 and a vague reference was made that similar was the position in respect of the assessment year in question. The assessment order was for the assessment year 1996-97 on which observation regarding the previous assessment year had been made, has also been reproduced above, while quoting the order passed by CIT appeal.
It will be relevant to record that the primary objection noticed by the assessing authority while serving notice upon the assessee as provided U/s 148 of the Act, 1961 was in regard to dis-allowance of salary of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Managing Director of the assessee company on 30th March, 2002 in cash and Rs.5 Lacs towards advance salary for the assessment year 2002-03 in cash on 10.04.2002 and since it was payment of salary in cash exceeding Rs.20,000/-, the above expenses were dis-allowable as provided U/s 40A(3) of the Act, 1961.
It is clear that the completion of assessment/re-assessment without furnishing the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiation of proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act is not sustainable in law as it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to supply them within reasonable time as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v ITO (supra).
Undoubtedly an order of assessment which has been passed for a subsequent assessment year may furnish a foundation to reopen an assessment for an earlier assessment year. However, there must be some new facts which come to light in the course of assessment for the subsequent assessment year which emerge in the order of assessment.
When there was intensive examination in the first instance in respect of the issue, which was the basis for re-opening of assessment, it was necessary for the AO to indicate, what other material, or objective facts, constituted reasons to believe that the assessee had failed to disclose a material fact, necessitating reassessment proceedings.
At time when query was raised under the head ‘Selling & Distribution Expenditure’, had there been insistence that TDS was required to be deducted and the amount specified to the tune of Rs. 22,70,869 was not required to be allowed as Trade Incentive without deducting TDS, the same ought to have been reflected somewhere in the computation of income and that would have bearing on the computation itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in these circumstances submitted that the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer on 26.03.2009 do not record or state that the agreement between the petitioner and Quest was not on record, and that there was failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose the material facts.
From such exchange of information between the Assessing Officer and the assessee, we need to gather whether the question of taxability of a receipt of Rs. 5,56,000/- from the members by the petitioner was under consideration by the Assessing Officer.
