Delhi H.C : The AO framed the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3)
High Court Of Delhi Revolution Forever Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2009-10 S. Ravindra Bhat […]
Section 147, Section 148
reassessments u/s 147
Section 147, Section 148
Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in treating the reassessment under Section 147, as time barred?
High Court Of Madras Seshasayee Paper And Boards Limited [Rep. By Its Vice President (Finance) & Secretary Sri V Pichai]
Section 147, Section 148
Bombay H.C : Assessing Officer can issue a notice of reopening of assessment provided he has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment
High Court Of Bombay Akshar Builders And Developers vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. Section 147, 148 Asst.
Section 147, Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 143(2), Section 148, Section 80HHC
Madras H.C : The reopening of assessment u/s.147 beyond four years is valid when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts
High Court Of Madras Tractors And Farm Equipment Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 143(2), 147, 148, 80HHC
Section 148, Section 147
Calcutta H.C : Whether the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act in course of reassessment proceedings would vitiate the reassessment proceedings altogether?
High Court Of Calcutta Pr.CIT vs. Oberoi Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Section 147, 148 Sanjib Banerjee & Abhijit Gangopadhyay, JJ. ITAT
Sec. 36(1)(Viia), Sec. 115JA, Sec. 143(1), Sec. 143(3), Sec. 40A(3), Section 133, Section 147, Section 148, Section 152, Section 153, Section 68, Section 69
Rajasthan H.C : the proceedings for reassessment under Section 148/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer on non-existing facts because ultimately the Assessee has been able to explain that the income which was believed to have escaped assessment was explainable but some other additions were made under the assessment order
High Court Of Rajasthan Prime Chem Oil Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 36(1)(viia), 40A(3), 68, 69, 115JA,
Section 80-IB, Sec. 143(3)
Gujarat H.C : The petitioner has challenged a notice of reopening dated 31.3.2017 issued by the respondent Assessing Officer.
High Court Of Gujarat Royal Infrastucture vs. DCIT Akil Kureshi & B. N. Karia, JJ. Section 80-IB(10), 143(3) Asst. Year
Section 4, Section 147
Bombay H.C : Where assessee disclosed all relevant facts at time of assessment, mere fact that he had confiscated certain amount received as advance for sale of property which had been allowed as bad debts in hands of purchaser, it could not be concluded that said amount escaped assessment and, thus, impugned reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed
High Court Of Bombay Cedric De Souza Faria vs. DCIT, Goa Section : 4, 147 Assessment year 2010-11 N.M. Jamdar
Section 147
Uttarakhand H.C : Whether since it was a case where assessment had been reopened on basis of tangible material placed on record, validity of reassessment proceedings deserved to be upheld
High Court Of Uttarakhand Dolphin Drilling Ltd. Vs. Assistant Director of Income-tax Section : 92CA,147 Rajiv Sharma, J. Writ Petition
Section 147, Section 150
Madras H.C : Where Commissioner (Appeals) made an observation that addition made by AO under section 68 represented capital introduced by partners of assessee-firm, AO could initiate suitable proceedings for looking into matter as said aspect of capital introduction by partners had not been examined earlier
High Court Of Madras Alfa Investments vs. ITO, Chennai Section 147, 150 Assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
