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 : 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 : Discover the consequences of incorrect SFT reporting triggering U/s 148A notices under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Learn from a deta...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the proposed penalties in Finance Bill 2024 for non-registration of machines under GST. Analysis of Section 122A and the i...
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 : DTPA has made a representation to Finance Minister, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman and requested for for recalling notices under section...
Income Tax : Read the full text of the ITAT Kolkata order on Alosha Marketing Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, discussing reopening of assessment under sec 147...
Income Tax : Read the detailed analysis of Indira Ramaiah Vs ITO case by ITAT Bangalore. ITAT upheld the addition of gift for undisclosed inves...
Income Tax : In this case, Gudiyatham Muniraj Ashokkumaran challenged an assessment order, citing breach of natural justice principles due to i...
Income Tax : Gujarat High Court quashes Income Tax reassessment notice against Deepak Natvarlal Pankhiyani HUF, citing lack of fresh evidence s...
Income Tax : Assessee was engaged in diamond manufacturing, trading, and windmill power generation, had claimed deductions under sections 35DD ...
Income Tax : Explore the latest guidelines for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Understand key procedures, amendme...
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 : Consequent to order passed by Allahabad High Court passing severe strictures and proposing to levy exemplary cost of Rs 50 lakhs i...
In Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA Nos. 3045/Ahd/2013 & 104/Ahd/2014, decided on 17.01.2017], briefly, the assessee being a company manufacturing/trading in air conditioners filed return of income on 20.12.2006 stating total income of Rs.15,62,01,340/-. It however returned nil income after adjusting carry forward losses.
Bombay High Court held that Supply of Reasons Recorded for Making Reassessment is Necessary Otherwise the Income Escaping Assessment shall be Void. The Assessing Officer(AO) is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the AO is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.
The Commissioner by an order dated 15.3.2000 allowed some of the grounds of appeal. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer stood merged with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and had no independent existence of its own and as such the assessment could not have been reopened in respect of the said items.
hen a claim was processed at length and after calling for detailed explanation from the assessee, the same was accepted, merely because a certain element or angle was not in the mind of the Assessing Officer while accepting such a claim, cannot be a ground for issuing notice for reassessment.
While the CIT may have proceeded on the basis that the reopening of the assessment was valid, this does not satisfy the requirement of law that prior to the reopening of the assessment, the AO has to, applying his mind to the materials, conclude that he has reason to believe that income of the Assessee has escaped assessment.
The case of assessee was reopened and the assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. While framing the assessment, the AO restricted the deduction claimed u/s 80P(2)(c)(i) of the Act and also confirmed the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) consequent to deposit
AO is bound to furnish the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act within a reasonable period of time so that the assessee could file its objections thereto and the AO was to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order thereon, which the AO has not done.
Stand alone AIR Information is not sufficient to hold that cash deposits constitute income. Cash deposits in bank account may or may not be Income. Hence when the treatment of the amount as Income is itself doubt , it definitely can not constitute Income escaping assessment and, therefore, it shall be too far fetched to hold that AIR Information constitutes Reason to believe that Income has escaped assessment.
He further stated that the reassessment proceeding is time bar and assessment cannot be reopen due to mere change of opinion after the assessment, the addition of Rs.29,65,101/- has wrongly been made, which was dully explained and duly credit in books of alc and there is no concealment.
The reasons supplied to the assessee for reopening of the case relates mainly to Share capital, which is already been investigated by Assessing officer in detail during Original Assessment. Therefore, The present exercise of issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Act would amount to nothing but a change of opinion, which is not permissible.
