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 : ITAT held that additions based solely on third-party search material without independent evidence or cross-examination are invalid...
Income Tax : ITAT held that a return filed under section 148 remains valid even if delayed. Failure to issue mandatory notice under section 143...
Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : The Finance Bill 2026 proposes allowing taxpayers to file an Updated Return even after receiving a reassessment notice under Secti...
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 : 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 : Addition of ₹90 lakh made under section 69A towards alleged cash payment for purchase of property as well as the addition made u...
Income Tax : The Mumbai ITAT held that an addition under section 69 cannot survive when the Revenue fails to establish that the alleged investm...
Income Tax : ITAT Lucknow held that disallowance of interest expenses cannot be sustained without evidence showing that interest-bearing funds ...
Income Tax : ITAT remanded the case as NFAC passed an ex parte order despite notice issues and held that a combined reassessment and ITAT effec...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that vague information and an excel sheet prepared by the Investigation Wing could not satisfy the statutory re...
Income Tax : The department has identified high-risk cases through its Insight Portal for AYs 2022-25. It directs officers to initiate reassess...
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...
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...
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.
