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 : 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 : 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 : Delhi High Court dismisses Income Tax Department's appeal in PCIT Vs Satya Prakash Gupta case, finding no evidence of commission r...
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...
Whether when notice u/s 148 is issued, Revenue is not required to verify the change in address of the assessee – Whether when assessee is aware of the fact that a notice has been issued but wrongly dispatched to his old address, the same is to be treated as deemed served – Whether the requirement u/s 149 is to ‘issue notice’ and not ‘service of notice’ as mandated u/s 34 of I-T Act, 1922.
The Return of Income filed pursuant to a notice notice U/s. 148 is not ‘voluntary’ & it can be readily inferred that the assessee had not furnished full particulars of his true income and so reopening became necessary. The explanation that the income was offered to buy peace is not acceptable because it is a clear case of admission of not offering true income earlier.
Section 147 – Sanction Of Superior Officer Renders Reopening Void: Bombay High Court. The notice under section 148 can be issued beyond four year with prior approval of joint commissioner and at the same time joint-commissioner should be satisfied that this is fit case for issue of a notice in view of section 151(2). In the present case no new evidence or fresh evidence produce by assessing officer and the joint-commissioner granted approval without see the record for issuance of notice under section 148. The court held that there was no compliance of the mandatory requirements of Section 147 and 151(2), the notice reopening the assessment cannot be sustained in law.
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.
CIT Vs. Jagat Novel Exhibitors Private Limited (Delhi HC)- Main contention of the Assessee was that the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was not issued to the respondent company in the name of the principal officer but was issued to Jagat Novel Exhibitors and without the words “Private Limited” as a suffix. Therefore, the notice was vague as it could not be ascertained whether it was issued to an individual, a firm, an HUF, etc. The notice, therefore, was void ab initio and accordingly the assessment order was a nullity.
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.
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.
