Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 78 (1.51 seconds)
Documents citing Addl Cit 1(3), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly ... on 24 December, 2019

Rohit Sushilkumar Sawhney,Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 34 (3) (2), ... on 31 October, 2025

Further it also follows the decision of this Court in Videsh Sanchanr Nigam Ltd. (supra) in holding that an order passed in reassessment proceedings are bad in law in the absence of reasons recorded for issuing a reopening notice under Section 148 of the Act being furnished to the assessee when sought for. It is axiomatic that power to reopen ower to exceptional power and whenever revenue seeks to exercise such power, they must strictly comply with the prerequisite conditions viz. Reopening of reasons to indicate that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment which would warrant the reopening of an assessment. These recorded reasons as laid down by the Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object to the same before the Assessing Officer. Thus in the absence of reasons being furnished, when sought for would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahendra Sharma,Jaipur vs Ito, Ward-3(1), Jaipur on 25 March, 2025

''5. We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge. However, we clarify that when a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. .In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the assessing officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the above said five assessment years.'' As per record, since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assessee till the completion of the assessment, therefore, in our considered view, the reassessment order in these circumstances of the case, cannot be upheld. For reaching this conclusion, we draw strength from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court had categorically held that since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assesse till the completion of the assessment then reassessment order cannot be upheld and thus 29 ITA No. 654/JPR/2023 Mahendra Sharma vs. ITO .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pebble Bay Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs The Dy Cit 13(1)(2), Mumbai on 10 July, 2024

M/s Pebble Bay Developers Pvt. Ltd. 7 MA No. 459/MUM/2023 Bombay High Court held that the reasons (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay recorded for reopening of the assessment, though repeatedly asked by the assessee, were furnished only after completion of the assessment and therefore, reassessment order could not be upheld. But in the instant case, the issue challenged was in relation to only alleged difference in actual reasons recorded and the reasons supplied. There is no issue that reasons recorded were supplied after completion of the assessment and therefore, ratio of the said decision is not applicable icable over the facts of the instant case. This fact was already communicated to the assessee during the course of the hearing. Accordingly, the contention of the assessee raised in the Miscellaneous ellaneous Application in para 4.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karan Khurana , Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 48(2), New Delhi on 17 March, 2021

9. We have considered the rival submissions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors 389 ITR 13 following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft India Ltd. vs. ITO 259 ITR 19 (SC) and judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next