Tag Archives: Section 147

No Reassessment if provision for bad & doubtful debts is disclosed in ITR : HC

By | April 19, 2019

Madras High Court CIT Vs. M/s. Indian Potash Ltd.   Tax Case Appeal No.1363 of 2008 Date of Judgement/Order : 11/09/2018 Related Assessment Year : 1998-99 This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench A, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2025/Mds/2006, dated 14.03.2008 for the Assessment Year 1998-1999.… Read More »

No reassessment because ITR not reflecting in IT system of dept. if it was filed manually by assessee

By | April 9, 2018

IN THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH Narain Dutt Sharma v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 6 (1), Jaipu VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT APPEAL NO. 203 (JP.) OF 2017 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08] FEBRUARY  7, 2018 P.C. Sharma and Prashant Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Ajay Malik (Addl. CIT) for the Respondent. ORDER   Vikram Singh Yadav, Accountant Member –… Read More »

No reopening of case u/s 147 due to increased sales in FY 2016-17 : CBDT Circular

By | December 11, 2016

Circular No. 40/2016 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (CBDT) North Block, New Delhi, the 9th of December, 2016 Subject: – Directions under section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-regd.- Recent initiatives of the Government to curb the black economy in the country has encouraged people to shift towards digital mode of… Read More »

Retro-amendment in Sec. 80-IB won’t enable AO to reopen assessment

By | October 27, 2016

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4 & 1 AKIL KURESHI AND A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13589 OF 2011 SEPTEMBER  12, 2016 R.K. Patel, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, Advocate for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. – Petitioner has challenged a… Read More »

Tangible material required by AO to show income escaped assessment

By | February 25, 2016

Facts of the case The Respondent Assessee filed a return of income on 2nd December 2003 showing a loss of Rs. 96,19,890. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act at the return amount. An order for refund of Rs. 20,16,957 was issued. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’) passed an order recording ‘reasons… Read More »

Reopening of the assessment should indicate which material fact was not disclosed by the Assessee

By | February 18, 2016

Issue The assessee company has earned a dividend of Rs. 1,85,30,220/- which has been treated as exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act. However, no disallowance of expenditure have been made u/s 14A neither has assessee produced any details to show that no expenditure was incurred on earning of this exempt income. Held It was insisted… Read More »

Reopening of assessment on change of opinion is not permitted :HC

By | December 8, 2015

Facts of the case During the previous year under consideration the assessee has inter-alia credited a sum of Rs. 5,05,33,63,209/- directly into the General Reserve Accounts in the Balance Sheet as “profit on sale of investment” without routing it through the profit and loss account of the corresponding year. AO’s contention:- Income of Rs. 5,05,33,63,209′-… Read More »

Change of opinion not permissible for invoking Section 147

By | December 2, 2015

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI New Delhi Television Ltd., vs. A.C.I.T., Circle 13(1) ITA Nos. 1023/Del./2013 Asstt. Year : 2003-04 The brief facts of cases are :- that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of producing customize software/programs for broadcasters like Star TV, BBC, Vijay Television etc. The… Read More »

Section 147 Case Laws

By | October 23, 2015

Section 147 – Whether Reopening can be done pursuant to judgment of Supreme Court ? Held-No Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax &Ors. Vs. M/s. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Limited (Supreme Court)( Civil Appeal no. 2329 of 2006) “The subsequent reversal of the legal position by the judgment of the Supreme Court does not authorise the Department to re-open… Read More »