The case of the petitioner is quite elementary, and we are constrained to observe the complete apathy and negligent approach of the assessing officer concerned in discharging his duties, by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Allahabad High Court has said that notice under Section 263 was prepared and uploaded on 28-03-2022 and the same was received on the fixed date and the impugned order dated 31-03-2022 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
Section 127 of IT Act to the extent it permits transfer from one Assessing Officer under a Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to another Assessing Officer under another Principal Commissioner of Income Tax who are holding non-concurrent charges remains untouched and continues to apply in its pristine form.
It is a well-accepted principal of tax jurisprudence that the Assessing Officer cannot sit on the armchair of a businessman assessee to replace his business strategy by his own whims and fancies
The Revenue had submitted that the Assessing Officer is competent to consider all the material that is available on record, including that found during the search, and make an assessment of ‘total income’. While some of the High Courts agreed with the said proposition, some disagreed. The Supreme Court was, hence, called upon to resolve the conundrum.
It is a trite law that the reasons, as recorded for reopening the reassessment, are to be examined on a standalone basis to determine the validity of proceedings under section 147 IT Act.
Delhi High Court: In a case, where petition was filed by a son against the assessment order and the notice
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of R Mahadevan and Sathya Narayan Prasad, JJ. dismissed the tax appeal holding that guarantee commission
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ and R. K. Pattanaik J. dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (ITAT): Addressing the issue, of whether mere rejection of the claim by an Assessing Officer would ipso
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi: Stating that, “Urgent needs invite urgent action”, Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Dr B.R.R. Kumar,
by Akshat Malpani†
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indira Banerjee and MR Shah, JJ has held that mere mentioning of the new
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Dr S. Muralidhar and Talwant Singh, JJ. quashed an order of reassessment passed by the Assessing
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (ITAT): In a case related to bogus Share Capital/Premium, the Accountant Member RK Panda took note of
Karnataka High Court: A Division Judge Bench comprising of Vineet Kothari and S. Sujatha, JJ., decided an Income Tax Appeal wherein it