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...
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.
The Assessing Officer supplied reasons he had recorded for reopening the assessment, which read as under:- “The assessee company filed its return of income on 22.12.2006, declaring total income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) was finalized on 18.06.2008 determining the taxable income of Rs.1,00,86,370/-. It is seen that the assessee company had made payment of Rs.21,60,399/- in Foreign Company for purchase of raw materials. However, neither did the company deduct TDS on this amount nor any certificate obtain from the concerned Assessing Officer for non-deduction of TDS. Prasad Koch Technik Tech Pvt Ltd Vs. Versus ACIT (Ahmedabad High Court)
ACIT vs. Major Deepak Mehta (Chattisgarh High Court) – The Bombay High Court in Jet Airways (supra) observed that after issuing a notice under Section 148, the income which has initially formed a reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment, but as a matter of fact has not escaped assessment. The AO cannot proceed to assess some other income independently, however, it was observed that it is open for the AO to issue a fresh notice under Section 148 and proceed thereafter. The High Court of Delhi in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited (supra), has taken the similar view.
Dalmia Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Delhi High Court)- It is well settled that audit objection on the point of fact can be a valid ground for reopening of assessment. In the case of New Light Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 256 ITR 391 (Del), a Division Bench of this court after referring to the decision of Supreme Court in CIT vs. P. V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 13 (SC), has held as under (at page 393) :’In the case of P. V. S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13, the apex court held that the audit party can point out a fact, which has been overlooked by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment.
B. J. Services Company Middle East Ltd. and others Vs. DDIT (Uttarakhand High Court)- The combined effect of the provisions of Section 44BB, 44DA and 115A of the Act will not have a bearing to the cases in hand in as much as the Explanatory Note to the Finance Bill, 2010 clearly indicates that the amendments proposed in Section 44BB and 44DA of the Act would take effect from 1st April, 2011 and would apply in relation to the assessment year 2011-2012 and subsequent years. The amendment is prospective in nature and would not apply to the cases in hand which is of the earlier assessment years.
If the assessee is not able to give satisfactory explanation as to the “nature and source” of a sum found credited in his books, the sum may be treated as the “undisclosed income” of the assessee. The initial burden is on the assessee to explain the “nature and source” of the credit and to do so, the assessee is required to prove (a) Identity of the shareholder; (b) Genuineness of transaction; and (c) credit worthiness of shareholders; If the assessee has produced documents like PAN Card, bank account details or details from the bankers the onus shifts upon the AO and it is for him to reach the shareholders and the AO cannot burden the assessee merely on the ground that summons issued to the investors were returned back with the endorsement “not traceable”; There is an additional burden on the Department to show that even if share applicants did not have the means to make investment, the investment made by them actually emanated from the coffers of the assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed income of the assessee. In the absence of such finding, addition cannot be made u/s 68 in the hands the assessee.
As the issuance of the s. 148 notice and the communication and furnishing of reasons go hand in hand, the reasons have to be supplied to the assessee before the expiry of period of 6 years. If this is not done, the validity of the s. 148 notice cannot be upheld. In any proceeding, whether civil or criminal, a summons issued without a copy of the plaint or complaint has to be construed as if no valid service of notice has been effected upon the defendant or respondents.
The income-tax department’s hands are tied by the law even if it wants to go after Ottavio Quattrocchi, following the observations of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Sections 148 and 149 of the Income Tax Act prevent authorities from reopening assessment in any case that goes beyond six years.
Reopening of tax assessment beyond four years on the basis of a retrospective amendment is not justified, if the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary during the original assessment proceedings
The assessee-company allotted shares to four companies. The allottee companies were active as per the records of the ROC and were allotted PAN and assessed to income-tax. Though the assessee filed a return, no assessment u/s 143(3) was made. The AO s
