Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-exami...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : A detailed look at how the Finance Act, 2021 reshaped Sections 147–151, introduced Section 148A, and reduced limitation periods ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill, 2026 clarifies who can issue notices under sections 148 and 148A. It confirms that only jurisdictional Assessing...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : Discover how Finance Act 2021 revamped assessment and reassessment procedures under Income-tax Act, impacting notices, time limits...
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 : ITAT Indore held that appellate order violated principles of natural justice after finding that key hearing notices were sent to a...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that in cases involving bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to incom...
Income Tax : Tribunal noted the assessee’s contention that only his share in jointly owned properties could be taxed instead of the entire tr...
Income Tax : ITAT Hyderabad condoned a 182-day delay in filing the appeal after accepting medical evidence relating to failed liver transplanta...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 29/2024-Central Excise rescinds six 2022 excise notifications in the public interest, effective immediately. Deta...
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...
Assessee had disclosed full and true particular relating to claim of depreciation at time of original assessment then assessing officer has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act, after the period of four year from the end of relevant assessment year. We, therefore, issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notice under Section 148 of the Act.
The existing provisions of section 153 and 153B, inter alia, provides the time limit for completion of assessment and reassessment of income by the Assessing Officer. Time limits have been provided for completion of assessment or reassessment under section 143(3), 147, 153A, 153C, etc. Further, these time limits get extended if a reference is made under section 92CA to the Transfer Pricing Officer during the course of assessment/reassessment proceedings. These time limits are either from the end of the financial year in which the notice for initiation of the proceedings was served or from the end of the assessment year to which the proceedings relate.
It is proposed to amend the provisions of section 149 so as to increase the time limit for issue of notice for reopening an assessment to 16 years, where the income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment.
Section 149 of the 1961 Act, which provides the period limitation, categorically provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued after the period prescribed has lapsed. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Assessing Officer to proceed to reassess.
HV Transmissions Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai) – Section 147 applies both to section 143(1) as well as section 143(3) and, therefore, except to the extent that a reassessment notice issued u/s 148 in a case where the original assessment was made u/s 143(1) cannot be challenged on the ground of a mere change of opinion, still it is open to an assessee to challenge the notice on the ground that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.
CIT Vs. Software Consultants (Delhi High Court)- For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act.
Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd Vs. DGIT (Delhi HC)- Draft order is not the final assessment order and does not result in completion of assessment. Under sub-section (2) to Section 143, the assessee has a right to accept, within 30 days, the draft assessment order or has right to file objections with the Dispute Resolution Panel and the Assessing Officer. Under Section 144C(3), the Assessing Officer shall complete assessment proceedings on the basis of the draft order only if the assessee files his acceptance to the variations or if no objections are received within 30 days.
Doshion Ltd. Vs. ITo (Ahmedabad HC)- Having thus heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it clearly emerges that the assessment previously framed after scrutiny is sought to be reopened beyond the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. In the reasons recorded, the Assessing Officer has not suggested that such income escaped assessment for the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. In fact the sole ground on which such scrutiny assessment is sought to be reopened beyond 4 years is that by virtue of Explanation to Section 80IA added with retrospective effect from 1.4.2000, income derived from the works contract would not qualify for deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.
CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd (Delhi High Court) – The argument of the assessee before the Tribunal was that the approval was not granted by the Joint Commissioner for reopening U/s. 147. Instead, it was taken from the CIT, Delhi-III, New Delhi, who was not competent to approve even when he was a higher Authority inasmuch as Section 151 of the Act specifically mentions Joint Commissioner as the Competent Authority. This contention of the respondent-assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal thereby quashing the assessment proceedings. The contention of the Revenue that it was merely an irregularity committed by the AO and was rectifiable under Section 292B of the Act, has not been found convincing by the Tribunal. Where the Assessing Officer does not himself exercise his jurisdiction under Section 147 but merely acts at the behest of any superior authority, it must be held that assumption of jurisdiction was bad for non-satisfaction of the condition precedent.
Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd Vs ACIT (Bombay HC) – In the present case, admittedly, the reopening of the assessment is beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant Assessment Year. The jurisdictional condition under Section 147 in such a case is that there must be a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for that Assessment Year. As noted earlier, in the narration of facts, there was a disclosure by the assessee during the course of the assessment proceedings of the fact that (i) During the previous year ending 31 March 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into with a Swiss Company; (ii) Under the MOU, the outstanding balance of the loan was settled at Swiss Francs 480,000 as against the outstanding balance of 800,000 Swiss francs;
