Loading High Court cases…
539 orders · Page 6 of 11
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before various High Courts, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The assessing officer is required to provide information and material relied upon by the Revenue to the assessees within thirty days, allowing the assessees two weeks to reply. The requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for notices issued from April 1, 2021, to the date of the order. The assessing officers are to pass orders under Section 148A(d) thereafter and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and in law shall continue to be available. The Supreme Court's order is applicable PAN India and modifies similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any matter involves issues other than Section 148, liberty is granted to the writ applicant to file a fresh writ application.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court of Gujarat disposed of all the captioned writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act and construed as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b). The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure for such notices. Assessing officers were directed to provide information relied upon to the assessees, who would then have two weeks to reply. Thereafter, assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and, if necessary, issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and other laws were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and modified similar judgments passed by various High Courts. The High Court clarified that if any other issue beyond Section 148 was involved, the writ applicant would be at liberty to file a fresh application.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court disposed of all the writ applications in terms of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had held that notices issued under the unamended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, between April 1, 2021, and the date of substitution by the Finance Act, 2021, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Court directed that these notices be treated as show-cause notices under Section 148A(b), with the assessing officer providing relied-upon material within thirty days and assessees replying within two weeks. The requirement for prior approval for inquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. Assessing officers were to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue notices under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to assessees and the Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021, and law were preserved. The Supreme Court's order was made applicable PAN India and governed pending writ petitions. The High Court clarified that if any matter involved issues other than Section 148, liberty was granted to file fresh applications.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to properly consider the objections filed by the writ applicant against the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court referred to its previous decision in Divya Jyoti Diamonds (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer and the Supreme Court's ruling in GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, emphasizing that the disposal of objections must be a speaking order, reflecting proper application of mind and dealing with each objection. The Court found that the AO's order was passed mechanically and without meaningful consideration of the assessee's specific objections, particularly regarding the HUF account. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh consideration of all objections, with a direction to pass an order that reflects proper application of mind within three months.
The High Court held that the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 31, 2022, deserved to be quashed and set aside. This decision was based on the Revenue's admission that the verification of original records revealed the alleged transaction had occurred in a different assessment year, not the relevant assessment year for which the notice was issued. The Court stated that if the Revenue wished to reopen the assessment for any other permissible assessment year, it could do so in accordance with the law. The writ application was disposed of with the quashing of the impugned notice.
The High Court noted that the pivotal issue was whether the compensation received by the husband for his wife's death in a terrorist attack constituted 'income' under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were valid. However, the Court observed that the department had decided to drop the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, in view of the department dropping the proceedings, the Court found no good reason to determine the pivotal issue. The writ applications were disposed of accordingly, with notices discharged and interim relief vacated.
The High Court noted that the pivotal issue was whether the compensation received by the husband for his wife's death in a terrorist attack constituted 'income' under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether reassessment proceedings under Section 148 were valid. However, the Court observed that the department had decided to drop the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, in view of the department dropping the proceedings, the Court found no good reason to determine the pivotal issue. The writ applications were disposed of accordingly, with notices discharged and interim relief vacated.
The High Court held that the mere allotment of a PAN under Section 139A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not automatically render an entity separate for the purpose of tax assessment. The Court found that the N.G. Patel polytechnic was an integral part of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Education Society and not a distinct assessable entity. The society had consistently included the polytechnic's transactions, including the cash deposits, in its own income tax returns and offered them to tax. Furthermore, the Court noted the inconsistency in the department's stand, as for later assessment years (2016-17 to 2018-19), the department itself accepted the polytechnic as part of the society in scrutiny assessments. The fundamental requirement for reassessment under Section 147/148, that income has escaped assessment, was not met as the income was already assessed in the hands of the society. Therefore, the impugned notice for reopening the assessment in the name of the polytechnic was quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 against N.G. Patel Polytechnic, treating it as a separate assessable entity solely on the basis of its PAN, was illegal and unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the allotment of a PAN under Section 139A does not automatically confer separate assessable status. The polytechnic was found to be an integral part of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Education Society, which had already included the polytechnic's transactions and income in its own returns. The Court noted the department's contradictory stance, accepting the polytechnic as part of the society in later assessment years (2016-17 to 2018-19) while attempting to treat it as separate for earlier years. Crucially, the fundamental requirement of income escaping assessment was absent, as the department itself had assessed the polytechnic's income as part of the society's income in subsequent years. Therefore, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the allotment of a PAN under Section 139A does not automatically make an entity separate for tax assessment purposes. The polytechnic is an integral part of the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Education Society and lacks independent legal existence. The society had already included the polytechnic's transactions, including the Rs. 2.37 crore deposit, in its own income tax returns. The court noted a significant contradiction in the department's stance, as it treated the polytechnic as part of the society in assessment orders for assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, while seeking to treat it as a separate entity for earlier years. Consequently, the fundamental requirement of escaped income for reopening under Section 147/148 was missing. The impugned notice under Section 148 was quashed.
The High Court held that the allotment of a PAN under Section 139A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not, by itself, make an entity a separate assessable entity for tax purposes. The Court found that the N.G. Patel polytechnic was an entity run and managed by the Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Education Society and was an integral part of it, not a separate assessable entity in the eyes of the law. The Court noted that the society had consistently included all transactions of the polytechnic, including the cash deposits and interest earned, in its own books of accounts and filed its income tax returns accordingly. The Court also observed a contradiction in the department's stand, as for assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19, the department had treated the polytechnic as part of the society in scrutiny assessments under Section 143(3). The fundamental requirement of escaped income was missing, as the department itself had assessed the polytechnic's income as part of the society's income. Therefore, the impugned notice issued under Section 148 was quashed and set aside.
The High Court held that the writ-applications succeed and are allowed. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment years is quashed and set aside. The Court concluded that from inception, the Society has been the assessable entity, and the Polytechnic, being run and managed by the Society, is a part of it and cannot be considered a separate assessable entity under the Income Tax Act. The Society has consistently included all transactions of the Polytechnic, including those with Bank of Baroda, in its own income tax returns. The denial of the Polytechnic filing its own return, supported by documentary evidence showing the Society's inclusion of such income, was accepted. Furthermore, the Department's own assessment orders for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19, passed under Section 143(3), treated the Polytechnic as part of the Society, creating a contradiction with its stance for AY 2009-10. The basic requirement that income has escaped assessment was found to be missing, as the Department itself had assessed the Polytechnic's income as that of the Society in later years. The mere allotment of a PAN under Section 139A does not automatically render an entity separate for tax assessment purposes.
The High Court held that the question of law formulated by the Revenue was more on facts rather than on law, and therefore, it could not be considered a substantial question of law. The Court found no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the ITAT. The ITAT had deleted the additions by holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring any cogent or admissible evidence on record to prove that the documents and evidences filed by the assessee were false. The Tribunal noted that the transactions were supported by contract notes, demat accounts, and were conducted through a registered stock broker on a recognized stock exchange, with payments received via account payee cheques. The ITAT relied on Supreme Court judgments in Omar Salav Mohamed Sait, CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, and Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT, stating that additions cannot be made on surmises, suspicion, and conjectures, and that the burden to prove a transaction as bogus must be discharged by adducing legal evidence. Consequently, the ITAT deleted the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law.
The High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer disposing of the objections. The Court remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration of all objections raised by the writ applicant, including those related to the 12 named entities not having accounts with the bank. Furthermore, the Assessing Officer was directed to consider objections the writ applicant might raise concerning the new transaction details presented by the Revenue (involving Mili Corporation, Yashoda Enterprises, and Shimmer Exim Private Limited). The Assessing Officer must apply his mind to all objections, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass a fresh reasoned order. The exercise is to be completed within two months. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that observations were prima facie. The writ applicant is only obligated to explain matters within its knowledge.
The High Court held that the question of law formulated by the Revenue was more on facts rather than a substantial question of law, and therefore, it was not inclined to interfere with the ITAT's order. The Tribunal had allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal's reasoning was that the assessee had provided documentary evidence, including contract notes, demat account statements, and proof of payment via account payee cheques. The Tribunal noted that the stock exchange and SEBI had not disputed the transactions, and no action was taken against the assessee's broker. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the AO had failed to bring any cogent or admissible evidence on record to demonstrate that the documents filed by the assessee were false. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that additions cannot be made based on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures without sufficient evidence. The ratio decidendi is that the burden of proving a transaction to be bogus lies strictly on the revenue, which must be discharged by adducing legal evidence. The operative direction was the deletion of the additions.
The High Court held that the respondent authorities were not justified in retaining the seized diamonds beyond the period stipulated under the proviso to Section 132B(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that the statutory time limit of 120 days for releasing seized assets after an application is made is mandatory and not merely directory. Failure to release the assets within this period renders their continued retention illegal and unlawful. The Court relied on its own previous decision in Cowasjee Nusserwanji Dinshaw (Supra), which held that retaining seized books of accounts beyond 180 days without proper reasons and approval was illegal. The Court found the facts of the present case glaring, noting that the application for release, made on September 6, 2019, was effectively decided much later, well beyond the statutory period. Consequently, the impugned orders retaining the assets beyond 120 days were quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities were directed to release the seized diamonds to the writ applicant within four weeks. The Court clarified that assessment proceedings, if initiated, could continue.
The High Court held that it need not enter into a debate regarding the constitution or registration of the LLP. Since the assessment orders for AY 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17 were not passed, the matter ended there concerning these years. The impugned notices for these assessment years were quashed and set aside. For AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, where assessment orders had already been passed, the Court declined to go into other issues, stating it would be open for the writ applicant to file appropriate appeals before the CIT(A). All questions of law concerning these latter assessment years were kept open to be agitated before the CIT(A). The ratio is that notices under Section 153C cannot be issued for periods when the assessee entity did not exist, and such a fundamental flaw can be addressed in writ jurisdiction, especially when assessments for those years have not been finalized.
The Tribunal held that the impugned order of transfer dated 8th July 2021 passed under Section 127(2) of the Act, and all consequential proceedings pursuant thereto, were without jurisdiction due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court reasoned that the recording of reasons and communication thereof to the party concerned serves a two-fold purpose: enabling the aggrieved party to know the reasons and demonstrate their erroneousness, and acting as a deterrent against arbitrary action. Citing Supreme Court decisions in C.B. Gautam vs. Union of India and Ridge vs. Baldwin, the Court emphasized that a breach of natural justice is sufficient to grant relief, and the 'empty formality theory' is an exception. Consequently, the writ-application was allowed, the impugned order of transfer and the consequential assessment order were quashed and set aside. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for transfer under Section 127 by issuing a show-cause notice with reasons and providing an opportunity of hearing.
The High Court held that all aspects relied upon for reopening were already before the Assessing Officer during the scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3). The revenue conceded this point. The Court found no omission or failure on the part of the writ applicant to fully and truly disclose all relevant aspects. No new tangible material had come to the knowledge of the respondent after the assessment was framed. Therefore, the case was considered one of a mere change of opinion. Consequently, the writ application was allowed, and the impugned notice was quashed. The court did not decide on the merits of the proposed additions, as the primary issue was the validity of the reopening itself.
The High Court held that the writ application fails and is rejected. The Court found that it could not be said that there was a total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) when recording the reasons for reopening. The AO's conclusion was not merely based on observations and information from the Investigation Wing; the AO had applied his mind to the same. The Court rejected the assessee's submission that the reasons recorded were merely an introduction to the investigations. The Court examined the AO's belief to a limited extent to ascertain if there was sufficient material for a reasonable belief and a live link between the material and the escaped income. The Court found that the AO did not initiate proceedings based on vague or unspecific information without forming his own belief. The Court reiterated that the adequacy of reasons is outside the scope of review at this preliminary stage, and the inquiry is limited to whether reasonable grounds existed for the AO to believe in escapement of income. The Court referenced various Supreme Court judgments, including "Kelvinator of India Ltd.", emphasizing that reopening requires tangible material and cannot be based on a mere change of opinion.
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 17.06.2021, and allowed the delay condonation application. The Court referred to the decisions in Artist Tree Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and others and G.V. Infosutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court emphasized that the powers under Section 119(2)(b) should be exercised equitably, balancing the assessee's claim against the delay. It noted that while technical reasons might seem insufficient on the surface, the authorities should consider the overall facts and the merit of the claim to avoid genuine hardship. The Court found that the assessee had shown bonafide reasons for the delay, and the rejection solely on the ground of delay, without a deeper consideration of the circumstances, was not justified. The ratio is that quasi-judicial orders rejecting condonation applications under Section 119(2)(b) are subject to judicial review, and courts may intervene if the rejection appears to be based on a narrow interpretation of delay, overlooking genuine hardship or bonafide reasons.
The High Court held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not adequately dealt with the objections raised by the assessee. The Court found that the assessee had provided an explanation regarding the difference between cash deposited and sales shown, attributing it to the VAT component which was treated as a liability. The AO's disposal of objections, stating it was not the appropriate time to discuss merits, was found insufficient. The Court emphasized that the AO was expected to apply his mind to the explanation provided by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned notice for reopening and the order disposing of objections were quashed and set aside. The matter was remitted to the AO for a fresh consideration of the objections, with an opportunity for a hearing to the assessee, to be completed within two months.