Landmark Cases on Assessment Procedure

If a claim is accepted in one assessment year, it must be allowed in subsequent years if there is no change in the facts. Consistency in the revenue's approach to taxation matters is essential for the rule of law.

An assessment under Section 153A cannot be finalized without issuing a notice under Section 143(2). A statement made during a Section 133A survey does not, on its own, form the sole basis for an assessment.

A reassessment framed by the Assessing Officer without objectively considering all objections raised by the assessee is liable to be quashed. The Assessing Officer must pass a separate order dealing with the objections, and merely disposing of them in the assessment order is not sufficient compliance.

The formation and constitution of a partnership are not affected by the fact that one of the partners is a benamidar.

An assessment order is not invalidated due to the omission of a section number if the omission is a curable defect and does not defeat the purpose of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.

Decisions relied upon are in the context of Section 153A/153C proceedings, where additions were made in a concluded assessment without seized material.

The appellate authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, are not barred from entertaining a fresh claim or an issue not originally raised in the assessment proceedings, even if the Assessing Officer would have been barred without a revised return.

When an assessee consistently follows a recognized method of accounting, like the project completion method, and there's no statutory prohibition, revenue cannot arbitrarily switch to another method like the percentage completion method during assessment.

When a definition is not provided in a particular section of the Income Tax Act, definitions from other sections of the Act or from other statutes can be used to ascertain the contextual meaning of an expression.

An assessment order passed without disposing of the assessee's objections to the reopening of assessment and without passing a speaking order is unjustified. The assessment framed by the AO cannot be sustained if objections are not dealt with.

The case discusses the assessment proceedings, specifically whether the Assessing Officer had a bona fide belief that income had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening of assessments.

If the statutory authorities responsible for overseeing a particular activity have not taken any action against an assessee, the assessing officer cannot allege a violation of the relevant provisions.

In assessments under Section 153A, a notice under Section 143(2) is not mandatory, as the requirement of natural justice is satisfied by issuing a questionnaire under Section 142(1).

Failure by the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure under Section 144C(1) is a breach of a mandatory provision and renders the assessment order without jurisdiction and bad in law, not a mere procedural error.

The High Court has confirmed that the principles laid down in the Vodafone India Ltd. v. DCIT case are relevant for subsequent legal analyses.

The decision in G.N.Mohan Raju v. ITO is relied upon in a case involving the quashing of an order by a subordinate authority, implying a review or challenge to administrative actions within the tax framework. The case is cited alongside others concerning assessment and appeals.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal must follow decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and cannot disregard them, even if the Tribunal believes a specific provision of law was not considered.

A previous decision of the High Court is approved. Another case is approved in CIT vs. Macmillan (SC).

The case is cited as authority for the proposition that in assessing tax liabilities, reliance on prior judgments by the assessee's counsel is a standard legal practice.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) must pass a speaking order that addresses the points raised in the appeal and provides reasons for the decision, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

The powers of the first appellate authority (CIT(A)) are coterminous with those of the Assessing Officer. The appellate authority can perform actions the Assessing Officer should have done and direct the Assessing Officer to take actions they have failed to take.

An assessee is not entitled to the benefit of input tax credit if it is not accounted for within the prescribed period, as per the provisions of the Act, even if a revised return is filed.

It has similarly been held in the following decisions, indicating that this case stands for a widely accepted legal principle, often cited in conjunction with other similar judgments.

The Delhi High Court held that Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) were ultra vires the Income-tax Act as they exceeded delegated legislation. Consequently, Section 43CB was introduced to provide legal sanction for ICDS III and IV, particularly for recognizing profits from construction contracts using the percentage of completion method.

Notice issued under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid if the Assessing Officer of the searched person and the Assessing Officer of the assessee do not record their satisfaction that the seized documents belong to the assessee.

Information becomes relevant only when its existence is realized and its implications are recognized. The Assessing Officer must examine the implications of information available to them.

The Supreme Court's dismissal of a Special Leave Petition affirms that the reopening of assessment is permissible even if the Assessing Officer relies on the same record as the completed assessment, and a mere change of opinion does not form the basis for such reopening.

An Assessing Officer is bound to consider a claim made by the assessee before the completion of assessment. The Assessing Officer has a duty to assist taxpayers in claiming reliefs.

Assessment orders not served before the time-barring date are considered non-est. If assessment orders are not served before the assessment's expiry, they are deemed invalid.

A final assessment order passed under section 144C(13) read with section 143(3) without first issuing a draft assessment order under section 144C(1) is violative of section 144C(1) and must be set aside. Such an order is void ab initio and not a curable defect.

FFE Minerals India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT is cited as an authority in legal arguments before tax authorities.

Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies when a temporary statute is repealed before its expiry. Where a provision is omitted and simultaneously re-enacted, the omission does not obliterate the provision.

An Assessing Officer exceeds their jurisdiction by making additions on issues beyond the scope of 'limited scrutiny' assessment. This renders the assessment order unsustainable.

This case supports the proposition of law that instructions and directions issued by the Income Tax Board under Section 119 of the Act are to be observed and followed by income-tax authorities for the proper administration of the Act.

When interpreting a statutory provision, courts must consider both the literal text and the surrounding context.

Deductions are admissible even if claimed for the first time before the first appellate authority, provided the issue is a legal one and facts are on record. The Assessing Officer has a duty to consider such claims.

A specific statutory prescription, such as Section 80A(5), must be followed even if it appears to conflict with general principles. Decisions of the jurisdictional High Court are binding.

The Tribunal cannot adjudicate on the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer if the objection was not raised before the Assessing Authority. Sub-section 3 of Section 124 bars an assessee from raising questions of jurisdiction before the First Appellate Authority or Tribunal if such an objection was not raised before the Assessing Authority at the very first stage.

The Income Tax Act does not provide an appeal remedy for additional tax demanded under section 115QA, but an alternative remedy of appeal before the CIT(A) may exist.

An Assessing Officer must record their dissatisfaction with an assessee's disallowance before making a further disallowance under Section 14A.

An assessee is entitled to a deduction based on the provisions of law, irrespective of the existence or absence of entries in its books of account. Preparing accounts in accordance with statutory provisions does not prevent an assessee from claiming tax on real taxable income.

A challenge to jurisdiction under section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act must be made within one month of the notice, as prescribed by the Act.